JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video-conferencing.

2. Heard Ms. Shama Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, learned Government Pleader 18 along with Ms. Prerana Anand, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader 18 for the State/Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RERA')/Respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"(i) For quashing of the part of the second direction passed in operating part of the order dated 29.04.2021 (para 45) by Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bihar (herein after authority) whereby it has decided the question of title of land (hotel in about 1 katha) of the petitioner over which the Petitioner's family had exclusive title and peaceful uninterrupted possession since the year 1970. The authority vide order dated 29.04.2021 has directed to demolish the Petitioner's hotel and to handover the possession to the developer/ builder inspite of the statement made by the builder/developer that the land belongs to the landowner and the developer cannot interfere with regard to the title of the said land. The Petitioner could not obtain certified copy of the impugned order as the authority is not functioning since 24.04.2021 and will not function till 16 May 2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions.

(ii) For protection from the demolition order dated 29.04.2021 passed by Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bihar against the landowner during the period when neither the authority nor the appellate Tribunals are functioning and COVID-19 pandemic restrictions are enforced.

(iii) For any other relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the RERA raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that in view of the Bihar Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Tribunal') being functional, to which an appeal lies against the impugned order, the present writ petition may not be entertained by the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time when the writ petition was filed, the Appellate Tribunal was not fully functional and because of the urgency involved, she had preferred the present writ petition. However, in view of the stand of learned counsel for RERA that the Appellate Tribunal was functioning now, it was submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to move before the Appellate Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that the Court may lay down a time-frame where at least a first hearing be granted by the Appellate Tribunal, inasmuch as the question of interim protection/relief is concerned.

7. Learned counsel for RERA does not object to the aforesaid request(s) by the petitioner.

8. It is not out of place to note Sections 44 and 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'):

'44. Application for settlement of disputes and appeals to Appellate Tribunal.-(1) The appropriate Government or the competent authority or any person aggrieved by any direction or order or decision of the Authority or the adjudicating officer may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

(2) Every appeal made under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within a period of sixty days from the date on which a copy of the direction or order or decision made by the Authority or the adjudicating officer is received by the appropriate Government or the competent authority or the aggrieved person and it shall be in such form and accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed:

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain any appeal after the expiry of sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filling it within that period.

(3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may after giving the parties an