Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Purandar Promoters And Developers … vs Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory … on 25 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:36169
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3700 of 2025
1 - M/s Purandar Promoters And Developers Private Limited, Through Its
Director Mr. Rohit Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Pankaj Kumar Agrawal, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Mission Hospital Road, Behind Brilliant Public School,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Having Registered Address At Mission Hospital
Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Aurhtority, Through Its Registrar,
Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001
----Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
25/07/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s);-
10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed in
the case No. M-COM-2024-02582 by Ld. Chhattisgarh
Real Estate Regulatory Authority;
10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the
order dated 24.02.2025 passed in the case No. M-
COM-2024-02582 by the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate
Regulatory Authority;
Or To Kindly set aside the order dated 08.01.2025 and
24.02.2025 passed in the case No. M-COM-2024-
02582 by the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority and remand the matter back before the Ld.
Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority with a
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.07.30
11:25:56
+0530
2direction to provide the petitioner an opportunity to
present its submission before the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real
Estate Regulatory Authority in relation to alleged non-
compliance of the provisions of the Section 4 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development ) Act 2016;
10.3 To direct the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, Chhattisgarh
Real Estate Regulatory Authority to not act in
accordance with the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by
the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory in Case
No. M-COM-2024-02582
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Suo Moto
Complaint M-COM-2024-02582 wherein, the Ld. RERA has
imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one crore only)
on the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice
and providing the petitioner any opportunity of prior hearing.
Further, vide impugned order dated 24.02.2025, the Ld. RERA
has directed the Adjudicating Officer to initiate proceedings
against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- without
giving opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions with
respect to erroneous penalty imposed on it.
4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the submission made
by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present
writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy is
available to the petitioner under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. In the case of Ramprastha Developers (P.) Ltd. V. State of
Haryana reported in CWP 24591-2024 it has been held as under:-
The Respondent Authority and the
3
complainants argued that writ petition is not
maintainable as the petitioners had an
alternative remedy of filing an appeal before
the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under
Section 43(5) of the RERA Act.
While deciding the writ petition the Hon’ble
High Court observed that RERA’s jurisdiction
over a complaint is primarily based on Section
31, rather than on technical omissions related
to Section 3(1) i.e. registration of the project or
its second proviso i.e. direction of the
competent authority for registration of the
project and therefore non-issuance of the.
registration certificate does not restrict the
rights of the home buyers, to access the
remedy contemplated under the RERA Act.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court observe that
determination of RERA’s jurisdiction over a
complaint is primarily based on Section 31.
Since, Section 31 grants RERA the power to
adjudicate complaints related to any violations
of the Act, Section 3(1) and its proviso do not
define or limit RERA’s jurisdiction.
Further, while deciding the issue related to
filing of the complaint by the home buyer, the
Hon’ble High Court analysed the definition of
promoter and real estate project as defined
under Section 2(zk) and Section 2(zn) of the
RERA Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed
that when the broad statutory definitions of
“promoter” and “real estate project” are read
together with Section 31 of the RERA Act, it
becomes clear that any aggrieved person has
the statutory right to file a complaint before
RERA against a promoter, allottee, or real
estate agent for any violation of the Act or its
rules.
Non-registration of the project under RERA, or
the absence of any order under the second
proviso of Section 3(1) of the RERA Act, is
irrelevant in determining the validity of the
complaints filed by the allottees. The allottees,
as aggrieved parties, are fully entitled to seek
relief against the alleged misconduct of the
promoter.
Furthermore, Section 37 of the RERA Act
grants broad jurisdiction to RERA authorities,
allowing them to issue necessary directions
from time to time to promoters, allottees, or
real estate agents in order to ensure
compliance with the Act, its rules, and
4
regulations.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court observed that
definition of ‘allottee’ under RERA includes not
just current allottees in ongoing projects but
also potential and prospective allottees in
future projects. A promise of allotment in future
projects to be undertaken by the developer,
the complainant qualifies as an allottee and
therefore he has legitimate right to seek relief
under RERA, even though the project was not
yet launched.
In respect of the issue related to the alternate
remedy of filing the appeal, the Hon’ble High
Court observed that since RERA had valid
jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, the
proper legal course for the petitioners is to
pursue an appeal under the available statutory
framework.
Conclusion:
By this judgement, the Hon’ble High Court
affirms that RERA has jurisdiction to adjudicate
complaints even for unregistered projects
where homebuyers had made payments and
were awaiting possession.
As per provision of section 31 of the RERA
Act, anyaggrieved person has the statutory
right to file a complaint before RERA against a
promoter, allottee, or real estate agent for any
violation of the Act or its rules. The allottees,
as aggrieved parties, are fully entitled to seek
relief against the alleged misconduct of the
promoter.
Allottee under RERA includes not just current
allottees in ongoing projects but also potential
and prospectiveallottees in future projects and
therefore promise of allotment in future projects
to be undertaken by the developer, the
complainant qualifies as an allottee and has
legitimate right to seek relief under RERA,
even though the project was not yet launched.
The writ petition is deemed not maintainable,
as the alternative remedy under Section 43(5)
of the RERA Act to appeal before the Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) is available.
7. Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal provides
that Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order
5
made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act
may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having
jurisdiction over the matter.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
finds that the matter can be well considered by the Appellant
Tribunal which has been conferred with the power of looking into
all issues of fact and law and the alternative remedy is available to
the present petitioner under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
[ad_1]
Source link