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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.R. ANITHA, J.
Shwas Homes Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Moon Waters Owners Association – Respondent
M.S.A. Nos. 1, 4, 6 of 2023
Decided On : 29-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : S.S. Aravind, P.B. Krishnan.
For the Respondents: Sreevalsakrishnan, R. Lekshmi Narayanan.

Point of Law: Section 36 deals with power to issue interim orders.

Headnote:

Real Estate regulation and Development Act, 2016 - Section 3, 4(2)(i), 35, 34(f), 36, 37, 15 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 7 - Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 32 - Suo moto proceedings - Registration of township project - Whether section 3 Real Estate regulation and Development Act, 2016 contemplates registration when completion of project and issue of occupancy certificate under relevant local law with reference to a period long before Act - As Tribunal set aside order as non-est, there is no subsisting order with regard to registration of project.

Findings of the Court:

It has been categorically found by K-RERA as well as Tribunal that with respect to 1st respondent, fire NOC and PCB clearance has not been obtained and no occupancy certificate as contemplated under Kerala Panchayat Building Rules also could be produced by appellants to prove that occupancy certificate has been issued with respect to Moon Water - There is no subsisting order with regard to registration of project - So, impugned order passed by Tribunal is without considering final order of K-RERA in suo moto proceedings with regard to registration of project and hence it is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside - Since, no order on merit has been passed by Tribunal based on order, this Court is not venturing to pass any order on merit with regard to registration of project ‘Aqua City’ in this proceedings - In view of findings made above order passed by Tribunal setting aside order in suo moto proceedings is already found to be illegal and unsustainable and hence is hereby set aside.

Result: M.S.A. allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. ANITHA, J.

1. The above MSAs were filed against the common judgment in REFA Nos. 17, 18, 27 and 30 of 2022 of the Kerala State Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.

2. Heard both sides.

3. M.S.A. No. 1/2023 admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

    (a) Whether section 3 the Real Estate regulation and Development Act, 2016 contemplates registration when the completion of the project and issue of occupancy certificate under the relevant local law with reference to a period long before the Act?

(b) Whether standalone project means and has to be reckoned along with the sanction plan, lay out, agreement of construction advertisement of the project?

(c) Whether the certification of occupancy issued by the statutory authority can be brushed aside and ignored and required to be that complying with the Real Estate regulation and Development Act, 2016?

(d) Whether registration of the project can be directed when sanction plan, layout plan etc has expired and no declaration as contemplated under Section 4(2)(i) could be obtained for want no new constructions being commenced or advertised and when already substantial units have been sold out years back?

(e) Whether an inquiry under section 35 is mandatory before considering and adjudicating the question as to whether a project is ongoing or not for the purpose of registration?

(f) Whether interim order survives and is binding for other proceedings before the same forum in the same subject matter, when final order is pronounced?

(g) Is the finding that the whole Acquacity township project is registrable under section 3 the Real Estate regulation and Development Act, 2016 is correct?

4. M.S.A. Nos. 4 and 6 of 2023 admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

    1. Whether order dated 28.04.2021 preclude K-RERA from reconsidering the question of registration of the project in the final stage?

2. Whether there is any illegality in initiating suo moto proceedings by K-RERA regarding the registration of the project, after the proceedings initiated against the appellant/promoter in the complaints and passing of order dated 28.04.2021?

5. When the appeals came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that MSA Nos. 4 and 6 of 2023 arouse out of the suo moto proceedings initiated by the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short ‘K-RERA’). While disposing the common judgment in REFA Nos. 17, 18, 27 & 30 of 2022 of the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) found that KRERA has no power to review its earlier order dated 28.04.2021 and hence, the suo moto order dated 21.12.2021 is without authority and is non-est in the eye of law and it has no legal effect or consequence. Hence, no argument was advanced in MSA Nos. 4 and 6 of 2023 which in turn arouse out of the order in REFA Nos. 17/2022 and 18/2022.

6. In REFA No. 27/2022 appellants are the promoters and the respondents 1 and 2 are the associations in a tower by name Moon Waters Association and Aqua City Palm Bay Villas Owners Residence Association and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are two allotees in Moon Waters in the township called Aqua City. Three complaints 115, 116, 117 of 2020 were filed seeking registration of Aqua City township project comprising ten apartment towers and 68 Villas and other reliefs before K-RERA. K-RERA passed two interim orders issuing show cause notices to the promoters for not registering the projects on 07.11.2020 and 30.11.2020 respectively. Against which W.P. (C) No. 27217/2020 was filed and this Court directed K-RERA to consider the question of maintainability of complaints and competency of complainants on hearing both sides. Thereafter, an interim order was passed on 28.04.2021 to the effect that the entire project is registrable under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and development) Act, 2016 (in short ‘the Act’). The question of maintainability was found in favour of the respondents. Against which the appellants filed REFA

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