ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the appellate Tribunal constituted under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2016').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellate authority in its appellate order dated 08.12.2020 at para 33 has given certain directions which the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RERA') is not legally permissible to do so or is entitled to do so, therefore, the order would be bad in law and the said part of the direction is bad in law. She would further submit that the power under Act, 2016 is conferred under Section 31 & 71 and reading of the same would show that it is the adjudicating authority who will decide with respect to compensation. Consequently, the adjudicating authority which is to be appointed under Section 71 of the Act, 2016 is the authority, who is the petitioner herein, cannot be directed to do so as it would be completely illegal and the said direction cannot be allowed to sustain. She further refers to Section 35 of the Act, 2016 and would submit that Section 35 of the Act, 2016 also do not anywhere gives the power to delegate, which has been done in the instant case, wherein the direction has been given. She would further submit that she has not challenged the entire order only the part of the order given at para 33 has been challenged.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the arguments and would submit that the very purpose of filing of this petition would be against the judicial dictum as the authority which has filed the petition against the order of the appellate authority cannot be allowed to be a party as the authority was discharging its quasi judicial functioning. He would further submit that the RERA i.e. the petitioner herein, cannot step into the shoes of the parties either as complainant or respondent instead of adjudicating the same. Reference is made to the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in the case of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. West Coast Petroleum Agency {2012 (1) KerLJ 738} as also in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal & Anr. {(2014) 3 Cal LJ 1}.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition.

6. The petitioner herein is the RERA, which is constituted under the Act of 2016. The challenge has been made to the order passed by the appellate authority under the Act, 2016 dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure P-1). Reading of the order would disclose the facts that certain buyers had made a complaint before the RERA that the developer respondent No.8 Ms. Gold Bricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had demanded Rs.200/- per sq. feet for development of the plot as one time payment. It was further stated that though the permission granted by the Town and Country Planning dated 03.09.2009 do not empower/authorize the developer to collect or demand such amount and otherwise permission contemplates that the developer would develop the colony on its own expenses. Further the demand was made for supply of water and the maintenance and certain amount was paid, however, the additional amount which was paid, the developer has not returned on the contrary additional amount was called for. The complaint further contemplates that according to the published brochure there would exist a garden and the garden would have a 30 KM walkway, apart from it the colony would include fire extinguisher, 70% open land, temple, pond, developed open garden and other commercial activities, health care facilities like hospital, amphitheater etc. were to be given, however, the same were not developed. It is further contended that the video was displayed in the website to show existence of two big club houses, ponds, swimming pool, temple, broad road, boating etc., however, nothing of such amenit