IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
M/s Nesh India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Shri Shashi Bhushan Sinha, son of late Chandrika Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15444 of 2021
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Section 31 read with preamble – Complaint at the instance of land-owners – Maintainability – The use of the phrase 'any aggrieved person' is having a wide import to include the land-owners within its ambit and therefore to invoke the jurisdiction of RERA it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that land-owners are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act – With the usage of word "consumer" in the preamble of the Act, the legislature has made its intention clear that the objective of the Act is to protect the interest of the consumers in the real estate sectors and the establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal – Further, in terms of the Regulation 6(3) of the Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2021, land-owner(s) are to be treated as allottee(s) under the Act as he is getting apartments/flats in liew of his/her land – In view of all the provisions contained in the Act of 2016 and the regulations made thereunder coupled with the real purport of the registered Development Agreement, complaint filed by the respondents no. 4 & 5 (land-owners) before the adjudicating officer is definitely maintainable. (Para 27 to 39)
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Section 43(5) – Appeal against the decision of Authority/Adjudicating Officer – Amount required to be deposited by the promoter – The proviso to Section 43(5) provides two categories of condition of pre-deposit – The first category refers to penalty in which 30% or higher amount as determined by the Appellate Tribunal is required to be pre-deposited before the Appeal is entertained and heard on merits – The second category comprises the total amount to be paid to the allottee which includes interest and compensation – In the present case, amount awarded by the Adjucating Officer squarely comes under the second category and therefore, the total amount of interest and compensation imposed is required to be deposited before the said appeal is heard on merits – The Adjucating Officer under Section 71 of the Act is appointed by the authority for the purposes of adjudging compensation under the relevant provisions of the Act – In the present case, the amount awarded by the Adjudicating Officer is interest and compensation and not penalty. (Paras 40 & 41)
M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. 2022 (1) BLJ 242 (SC) : C.A. 6745-6749 of 2021; Bunga Daniel Babu Vs. M/s Sri Vasudeva Construction, (2016) 8 SCC 429; State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma, 2017 (1) BLJ 250 (SC) : (2017) 5 SCC 665 – Relied.
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep Kumar, J.)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned BREAT to hear the appeal of the petitioner on merits as per the provisions of Section 43(5) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which mandates deposit of at least 30% of the awarded amount for hearing the appeal and the petitioner has already deposited 30% of the awarded amount pursuant to the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the learned BREAT.”
2. During the pendency of this case, the petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application no.1 of 2023 for staying the execution proceeding which has been initiated at the instance of the respondent nos.4 and 5 before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bihar, in Execution Case Nos.68 of 2021 and 69 of 2021. The said interlocutory application has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2024.
3. The facts of this case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having registered office at Kidwaipuri, P.S.- Budha Colony, District-Patna. During the course of its business, the petitioner-company entered into a registered development agreement dated 25.08.2011 with respondent nos.4 and 5 for developing their land and further entered into an unregistered supplementary agreement dated 31.01.2011. Clause-7 of the agreement states that the project would be completed in three years including the grace period of six months from the date of sanction of the plan or the handing over the vacant possession to the developer. Since the project could not be completed within time, the respondent nos.4 and 5 filed complaint case nos. 81 and 82 of 2018 under section 31 of the Act before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short “RERA”) on the ground of non-observance of the terms of the development agreement dated 25.08.2011. The petitioner-company opposed the maintainability of the said complaint cases on the ground that the respondent nos.4 and 5 did not allege violation of the provisions of the Act or rules and regulations made thereunder as required under section 31 of the Act. However, RERA by an order dated 09.08.2019 disposed of both the cases with a direction to the petitioner-company to hand over the possession of three specified flats along with parking space to each private respondent and also directed that the private respondents were not required to pay anything as stipulated in the supplementary agreement dated 31.01.2011. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner-company preferred Appeal Case nos.08 & 09 of 2019 before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bihar unsuccessfully. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner-company preferred Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, which is still pending.
3.1. In the meantime, the respondents nos. 4 and 5 filed a connected case bearing No. RERA/AO/233/2019 and RERA/AO/234/2019 before the Adjudicating Officer claiming the interest and compensation under section 31 read with section 71 of the Act and Rule 37 of the Bihar Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. In the said case, the petitioner-company filed a detailed reply mentioning therein that the time indicated in the agreement for completion of the project has to be strictly adhered t
The court upheld the requirement for total deposit of compensation and interest before hearing appeals under the Real Estate Act, affirming RERA's jurisdiction over disputes involving landowners as a....
Land-owners are deemed consumers under the Real Estate Act, allowing them to file complaints against builders, overriding arbitration clauses in contracts.
In compensation claims under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, a promoter must deposit only 30% to entertain an appeal, contrary to 100% for return of amounts, as clarified by the Sup....
(1) Parliament has power to legislate even retrospectively to take into its fold pre-existing contract and rights executed between parties in larger public interest.(2) Real Estate (Regulation and De....
Enforcement of Act, 2016, comes under the purview of ‘promoter’, as defined under Section 2(zk) of Act, 2016, and necessary compliance of pre-deposit, as enshrined under Section 43(5) of Act, 2016
The High Court upheld that jurisdiction for RERA to adjudicate complaints exists even if the promoter lacks registration, emphasizing the rights of aggrieved parties under the Act.
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act mandates granting interest for delays in possession, encompassing circumstances including force majeure, without necessitating rigorous inquiry from t....
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.