IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, C.J., Amit Borkar, J.
Sandeep Pandurang Patil, S/o Pandurang Sitaram Patil – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary of Urban development and ors. – Respondents
Public Interest Litigation No.49 of 2021
Decided On : 19-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
Amit Borkar, J.
1. The petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of mandamus to enforce statutory compliance and establish accountability among the State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), and local planning authorities. The petitioner contends that under Sections 32 and 34 of the RERA Act, MahaRERA is vested with powers to facilitate an effective regulatory mechanism, which includes devising methods to ensure the verification of documents submitted by developers. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the lack of coordination between MahaRERA and local authorities contravenes the fundamental objectives of the RERA Act, particularly the protection of home buyers from fraudulent real estate practices. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the Court's intervention to direct respondents to adopt a rational policy framework to prevent registration of illegal buildings and to verify the authenticity of documentation submitted for project registration.
2. The petitioner emphasizes that Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the RERA Act require developers to obtain a valid registration certificate by submitting genuine project details, including approvals from competent authorities. The Government Resolution dated 3rd May 2018 serves as a legal mandate under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, requiring local authorities to maintain and disclose public record of legal and illegal constructions. This is crucial for safeguarding potential buyers, in line with the objectives of the RERA Act. Additionally, the Government Resolution dated 20th September 2019 restricts the registration of projects that lack RERA certification or a completion certificate, reaffirming the intent to prohibit registration of projects developed without requisite approvals. These measures reflect a legislative and administrative commitment to protect public interest, and the petitioner argues that the respondents must implement them to prevent malpractices in the real estate sector.
3. The petitioner submits that the project by respondent No.5, allegedly registered on 15th October 2020 based on a forged commencement certificate, illustrate a larger issue of developers exploiting regulatory loopholes. The petitioner points to widespread unauthorized construction in approximately 27 villages within Kalyan and Ambarnath Talukas, suggesting that developers circumvent compliance requirements by creating forged documents. The petitioner argues that under Section 7 of the RERA Act, MahaRERA possesses the authority to revoke registrations obtained through fraudulent means, and thus a coordinated mechanism is essential to detect and deter such malpractice. The petitioner further requests this Court to issue guidelines for a framework that ensures prompt verification of essential documents, such as commencement and occupation certificates, to maintain transparency and prevent wrongful project registrations.
4. In response to the Court’s notice, MahaRERA states in its affidavit that it has exercised its powers under Section 7(1) of the RERA Act, which authorizes the Authority to revoke project registration in cases of fraudulent documentation. The Authority's decision to revoke the project registration of respondent No.5 on 8th September 2021 aligns with Section 7(4)(c), which empowers MahaRERA to freeze accounts related to non-compliant projects, preventing further transactions that could affect innocent purchasers. MahaRERA further submits that it has urged the Government of Maharashtra to establish a centralized digital platform as mandated under Section 34(f) of the RERA Act, facilitating inter-agency verification of milestone approvals like commencement and occupation certificates. The authority contends that such a platform would allow both MahaRERA and the public to cross-verify the authenticity of docume
The court emphasized the necessity for rigorous verification of real estate project documents to prevent fraud, asserting that speculative inquiries without evidence are impermissible.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective or retroactive operation of RERA, 2016, and the mandatory registration requirement for ongoing projects with completion certifica....
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act mandates registration for ongoing projects, where completion certificates are absent, emphasizing consumer protection in real estate transactions.
The court affirmed that ongoing real estate projects must be registered under RERA to protect allottee interests, regardless of title transfer.
The distinction between occupancy certificate and completion certificate is crucial in determining the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the requirement for....
Complaints under RERA can only be filed for projects capable of registration; lack of necessary permissions renders a project unregistrable, barring complaints.
Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 interdicts promoters from advertising, marketing, booking, selling, offering for sale or inviting persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as ca....
The completion certificate issued must be strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and specifications, and the responsibilities of the promoter include providing and maintaining essential serv....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.