IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper inspection and adherence to legal requirements by the competent authorities in issuing occupancy certificates for real estate projects.

ORDER :

The petitioner-M/s Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 05-07-2023 passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘the Authority’ for short) rejecting an interlocutory application filed by it in a complaint registered by respondent No.2. The Authority holds that the complaint is maintainable before it.

2. Heard Sri V.Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.V. Girish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Suriya Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The facts adumbrated, are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and is a promoter of several real estate projects. Likewise the petitioner promotes a project in the name and style of ‘Serene Urbana’ exclusively developed for retirement community over lands bearing Sy.Nos. 126, 127, 16/1 and 153 of Kannamangala and Poojanahalli Villages, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The extent of land on which the development of retirement community is to be carried out is averred to be measuring 6.05 acres in blocks I to V consisting of 318 apartments and in block No.6, 32 apartments. It is claimed that all approvals were taken by the petitioner from the jurisdictional Planning Authority for a composite development of the total extent of 6.05 acres.

4. The petitioner, in order to develop and maintain the project as a retirement community, enters into an agreement with the 4th respondent who agrees to develop the project on the aforesaid land after obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals from the competent authority and to provide all the amenities required to run and operate the project as a retirement community. The project was termed to be a group housing apartment project and proposed to be constructed and sold by the petitioner in favour of intending purchasers of apartments. The development plan for the project was obtained from the competent authority on 29-04-2013 to construct the aforesaid residential apartment complex with all necessary amenities and a revised plan was also submitted on 09-07-2015. The project had to get completed in the month of April, 2017. It is claimed that when the project was nearing completion, the petitioner applies for grant of occupancy certificate before the jurisdictional authority which according to the petitioner was Kannamangala Gram Panchayat on 27-04-2017. The occupancy certificate was based upon the completion certificate issued by the project architect. Based upon the aforesaid application, the Panchayat resolves to issue occupancy certificate on 16-05-2017 which ultimately was issued on 16-08-2017.

5. During the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner had executed sale deeds in favour of allottees in the project commencing from June, 2016 for 318 apartments in the project. Sale deeds in respect of 241 apartments were executed and registered. Project does not get complete. It is then, the 2nd respondent Serene Urbana Apartment Owners’ Welfare Association (‘the Association’ for short) knocks at the doors of the Authority by registering a complaint seeking to declare the project ‘Serene Urbana’ as an on-going project and claimed several reliefs inter alia. The petitioner during the pendency of those proceedings before the Authority files an application on 09-02-2013 invoking Sections 35 and 36 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) seeking rejection of the complaint on the ground that the project is not registerable as it stands excluded under the Rules framed under the Act particularly with reference to Rule 4. Therefore, it was the case of the petitioner that it need not register itself before the Authority. This application is contested to by the 2nd respondent, which results in passing of the impugned order rejecting the application fi