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