Panchkula, July 5 -- The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) has dismissed 34 appeals by Emaar India and another builder, affirming that executing a conveyance deed and taking possession does not extinguish a homebuyer's right to compensation for delayed delivery of flats. The tribunal, in its July 2 order, held that the obligation to hand over possession within the agreed timeline is a statutory as well as contractual duty, and failure to do so attracts liability under Section 18 of the Act. Emaar India Limited (formerly Emaar MGF Land Limited), headquartered in Saket, New Delhi, had filed 18 appeals relating to its Gurgaon Greens project, while another developer filed 16 appeals, taking the total number of appeals to 34. The respondents included homebuyers from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Maharashtra, Assam and even foreign buyers from Australia. The promoters argued that once possession had been handed over and the conveyance deeds executed, all contractual obligations stood discharged and no claim for delayed possession charges could survive. They also contended that some allottees had already accepted delay compensation and were therefore barred from raising fresh claims. Rejecting these arguments, the tribunal observed that the status of an allottee does not cease merely because title has been transferred through a conveyance deed. It held that accepting the builders' interpretation would defeat the very objective of the RERA Act and allow promoters to escape liability despite admitted delays. The tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court's (SC) judgment in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Others vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd and the Karnataka high court's decision in M/s Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd vs Verghese Stephen, both of which held that homebuyers do not lose their right to claim compensation merely because they have accepted possession or executed sale deeds. The bench further rejected the builders' objection that the complaints were barred by limitation, holding that the RERA Act does not prescribe any limitation period for filing complaints before the authority under Section 31. Consequently, no limitation period can be imported into the Act through judicial interpretation, it ruled. The order was passed by a bench comprising justice Rajan Gupta (chairman), Virender Parshad (judicial member) and Dinesh Singh Chauhan (technical member), which upheld the HRERA Gurugram orders and dismissed all 34 appeals as devoid of merit....