9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 179 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remdy of appeal - jurisdiction of RERA - non-compliance with certain provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA Act) - HELD THAT - There is a bestowment of a statutory right in any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the authority or before the adjudicating officer thus relating to any violations or contraventions qua any provisions of the Act or of the rules and regulations made thereunder and the said statutory endowment is stated therein to be ably raisable against any promoter allottee or Real Estate Agent as the case may be. Resultantly therebys the issue relating to the exercising of able jurisdiction upon the apposite complaint rather becomes more pointedly underpinned on the supra provisions relating to the adjudicatory capacity of the RERA than visa-vis respective omissions being made to either sub-Section 1 to Section 3 of RERA Act or to the second proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 3 of RERA Act. The vesting of jurisdictional competence in the RERA authority is pinpointedly grooved upon the bestowment of a remedy to the aggrieved thus through the statutory mandate enclosed in Section 31 of RERA Act than upon the necessity of compliances being made by the promoter vis-a-vis the mandate which occurs in sub-Section 1 of the Section 3 of RERA Act. Moreover therebys wants if any of compliances rather even by the competent authority vis- -vis the mandate enclosed in the second proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 3 of RERA Act thus is not the apposite statutory precursor rather for vesting the competent adjudicatory jurisdiction in the RERA Authorities. Since the gamut of the apposite jurisdictional provisions relating to the conferment of competent adjudicatory jurisdiction upon the RERA vis-a-vis the instant controversy when but also naturally covers promoter(s) who irrefutably also is the present petitioner as he has evidently in terms of the definition of promoter offered through Annexure P-3 rather the subject project for sale to the prospective buyers. Resultantly when on makings of plain and literal interpretation of the supra provisions but manifests that therebys the competent adjudicatory jurisdiction vis-a-vis complaints as received from any ill act of even a promoter as the present petitioner thus is hence becomes conferred upon the RERA authorities. Conclusion - i) The writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the RERA Act. ii) The jurisdiction of the RERA Authority to adjudicate complaints even in the absence of project registration under Section 3 confirmed. iii) The non-registration of the project did not invalidate the RERA Authority s jurisdiction or render its actions coram non judice. Petition dismissed.
The judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court addresses a writ petition challenging an order by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Gurugram. The petitioners argued that the RERA lacked jurisdiction over their complaints due to non-compliance with certain provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The respondents contended that the petitioners had an alternative remedy through an appeal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, thus rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.
Issues Presented and Considered: The core issues considered by the Court were:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy through an appeal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. The Court noted that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially in cases involving jurisdictional errors. However, the Court emphasized that the petitioners should have pursued the statutory remedy first. 2. Jurisdiction of the RERA Authority: The petitioners contended that the RERA Authority lacked jurisdiction due to non-registration of the project under Section 3 of the RERA Act. The Court examined Section 3, which mandates prior registration of real estate projects with the RERA Authority. The Court also considered Section 31, which allows any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Authority for violations of the Act. The Court found that the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority is not solely dependent on the registration status of the project. The statutory framework under Section 31 provides a mechanism for aggrieved parties to seek redress for violations, irrespective of registration compliance. The Court held that the RERA Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints filed by the respondents. 3. Non-registration and Jurisdictional Defects: The petitioners argued that the lack of project registration under Section 3 rendered the RERA Authority's actions coram non judice. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the statutory provisions must be read harmoniously. The Court emphasized that the RERA Act's purpose is to protect homebuyers and ensure accountability in the real estate sector. The non-registration of the project did not negate the RERA Authority's jurisdiction to hear complaints. Significant Holdings:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. If the appeal is time-barred, the appellate body is instructed to consider an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and proceed accordingly.
|
