SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2365

BEFORE THE ASSAM REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Manojit Bhuyan, J. (Chairperson)
Amina Begum and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Asom Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondent
With
Taufiqur Rahman Borborah – Appellants
Versus
Asom Estate Developers Private Limited – Respondent
REAT/Assam/Appeal Nos. 06 of 2025 and 07 of 2025
Decided On: 06-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Jyotirmoy Roy, Sr. Adv., Rinku Hazarika, Adv., Indukalpa Buragohain, Adv., H. Rahman, Sr. Adv. and B.J. Das, Adv.
For the Respondents: Dhritiman Deka, Adv., Fahad Faridi, Adv. and Gazi Md. Sabri Sultan, Adv.

A real estate project completed prior to the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, with deemed occupancy certificate under local building rules due to authority's failure to respond within prescribed period, is exempt from registration under Section 3(2)(b) and falls outside the Act's ambit.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 3, 59 - Assam Notified Urban Areas (Other Than Guwahati) Building Rules, 2014 - Rules 23, 24 - Assam Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 - Rule 4 - Real estate project - Requirement of registration - Exemption for completed projects - Ongoing project - Completion certificate - Occupancy certificate - Deemed approval - Legal fiction.

(B) Meaning of "ongoing projects" - As per first proviso to Section 3(1) and Rule 4 of the Rules, ongoing projects are those which had not received occupancy certificate on the date of commencement of Section 3 (01.05.2017). "Completion certificate" under Section 3 in the context of the State Building Rules means occupancy certificate.

(C) Under Rule 24 of the Building Rules, upon receipt of completion certificate, the local authority must inspect and grant or refuse occupancy certificate within 21 working days; failure results in deemed approval for occupation, provided building constructed as per sanctioned plan. Any deviation must be communicated at first instance.

(D) The Act applies retroactively to ongoing projects, but projects already completed or to which completion certificate has been granted before the Act came into force are outside its fold (relying on Supreme Court precedent). (E) The Promoter applied for occupancy certificate on 10.03.2016 with building completion certificates dated 08.03.2016; the local authority did not respond within 21 working days, thus deemed approval accrued prior to commencement of the Act (01.05.2016). Hence the project was completed and exempt from registration under Section 3(2)(b). (F) Consequently, complaints before the Regulatory Authority were not maintainable as the project is outside the Act.

Facts of the case:
The real estate project "Orchid Residency" was developed under a Land Development Agreement dated 06.05.2013. No-Objection Certificates were obtained in 2013-2014. Application for occupancy certificate was submitted on 10.03.2016 enclosing building completion certificates dated 08.03.2016. The Act and Section 3 came into force on 01.05.2016 and 01.05.2017 respectively. The Regulatory Authority initiated suo-moto proceedings for non-registration but dropped them holding the project exempt. Complaint cases filed by land owners and a home-buyer were dismissed as not maintainable. Appeals were filed.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the Regulatory Authority's orders, holding that the project was completed prior to the Act, deemed occupancy had accrued, thus exempt from registration, and the Act does not apply to completed projects.

Issues: (1) Whether the project required registration under Section 3 of the Act or was exempt under Section 3(2)(b) as a completed project? (2) Whether the complaints were maintainable before the Regulatory Authority?

Ratio Decidendi: The project having been completed and deemed occupancy approved before the Act came into force, it falls outside the ambit of the Act. The Promoter was not liable to register. The complaints were rightly dismissed.

Result: All three appeals dismissed; impugned orders upheld.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • real estate law
    • real estate (regulation and development) act, 2016
      • registration under section 3
        • ongoing projects (Para 5, 6)
        • exemption for completed projects (Para 9, 14, 15)
      • completion certificate (Para 6, 7)
    • assam building rules, 2014
      • occupancy certificate
        • deemed approval (Para 8, 12)
  • administrative law
    • regulatory authority
      • real estate regulatory authority (rera) (Para 1, 4)
  • appellate procedure
    • real estate appellate tribunal (Para 1, 2, 16)

Table of Contents

1. Appeals against RERA order dropping suo-moto case for non-registration of real estate project claiming completion prior to Act. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )

2. Appellants argued project ongoing requiring registration; Respondent claimed deemed completion before Act due to authority's inaction. (Para 10 , 11 )

3. All three appeals dismissed; RERA orders upheld as project completed prior to Act and exempt from registration. (Para 16 )

4. What constitutes an 'ongoing project' under Section 3 of the RERA Act?

An ongoing project is one that commenced prior to the Act and for which a completion certificate or occupancy certificate had not been issued by the commencement date. (Para 5 , 6 )

5. How is 'completion certificate' defined under the RERA Act in the context of Assam Building Rules?

For urban areas under Assam Notified Urban Areas Building Rules, 2014, 'completion certificate' means an 'occupancy certificate' issued by the competent authority. (Para 6 , 7 )

6. What is the effect of deemed approval of occupancy certificate under Assam Building Rules?

If the municipal authority fails to grant or refuse occupancy certificate within 21 working days, occupation is deemed approved, subject to construction as per sanctioned plan. (Para 8 , 12 )

7. Are real estate projects completed before the commencement of the RERA Act required to be registered?

No, projects already completed or for which completion certificate was granted before the Act's commencement are excluded from registration under Section 3(2)(b). (Para 14 , 15 )

8. Can deemed approval of occupancy certificate due to authority's inaction render a project 'completed' for RERA exemption?

Yes, if deemed approval occurred before the Act's commencement, the project is considered completed and exempt from registration. (Para 12 , 13 )

JUDGMENT :

Manojit Bhuyan, J. (Chairperson)

1. All the 3 (three) appeals involve the same real estate project called "Orchid Residency", located at Panch Ali, A.T. Road, Dibrugarh Town, in the district of Dibrugarh. Whereas REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025 and REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 07 of 2025 are filed by the same set of land owners, the REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 08 of 2025 is filed by one of the home-buyers of "Orchid Residency". In all the three appeals the primary respondent is the same, being the Promoter/Builder i.e. M/s Asom Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. The REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025 is preferred against the order dated 07.01.2025 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam (in short, the RERA) passed in Case No. RERA/ASSAM/Reg/Notice/2023/42, which is a suo-moto case initiated by the RERA against the Respondent/Promoter i.e. M/s Asom Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. for not registering the project "Orchid Residency", thereby violating Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act). The other two appeals i.e. REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 07 of 2025 and REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 08 of 2025 have been filed calling in question the identical orders dated 18.02.2025, passed independently by the RERA in Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2022/37 and Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2022/36 respectively. By the order dated 07.01.2025 the suo-moto case was dropped by holding that the Respondent/Promoter was not liable to get the real estate project "Orchid Residency" registered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. By the subsequent order(s) dated 18.02.2025, the complaint cases filed by (i) Mrs Amina Begum and others and (ii) Dr. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah, were disposed of by holding that the complaints made before the Regulatory Authority cannot be entertained as the same were not maintainable in view of the order dated 07.01.2025, whereby it was decided that the Respondent/Promoter was not liable for getting the project "Orchid Residency" registered in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act.

2. As both the impugned orders dated 07.01.2025 and 18.02.2025 are interrelated, in that, the subsequent order dated 18.02.2025 having been passed on the basis of the decision rendered in the order dated 07.01.2025, as such, all the three appeals are taken up together for disposal by passing a common judgment and order. First, the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed in the suo-moto case is taken up for decision and, subject to the outcome thereof on the question of requirement or non-requirement of registration of the project in terms of Section 3 of the Act, further consideration will follow to decide on the legality and validity of the subsequent impugned order(s) dated 18.02.2025.

3. Having due regard to the primary issues involved, that is, on the necessity of registration of the project or not as well as on the maintainability of the complaint cases, certain dates, as borne out of records, related to the project and which has direct bearing on the final outcome of the appeals, must be taken note of. On 06.05.2013 the land-owners and the Respondent/Promoter entered into a Land Development Agreement, mutually agreeing upon construction of the real estate project on the land in question and allotment of share of flats in favour of the land-owners. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent/Promoter applied and obtained the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for construction of the project from the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board on 19.07.2013, followed by issuance of a fresh NOC on 13.03.2014, based on the modified drawings so submitted to erect/re-erect/add to or make alteration in the building. The Respondent/Promoter submitted application for Occupancy Certificate to Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board on 10.03.2016, enclosing therewith copies of the building completion certificates dated 08.03.2016 of the Architect/Construction Engineer/Structural Engineer who ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top