Point of Law:
A court, tribunal or authority of limited jurisdiction can decide upon its own jurisdiction and in case it decides wrongly and assumes jurisdiction, the superior court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, can always examine the jurisdictional facts and decide whether the issue of limited jurisdiction has been properly determined by the court, tribunal or authority of limited jurisdiction, or not

JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. Since the issue in all these writ petition is common, they are clubbed together and are being decided by this common order.

2. Assailing the order dated 2.8.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, unsuccessful petitioner has preferred these intra court appeals.

3. The facts in brief are that the respondents no.4 filed their respective complaints against the appellant before the Adjudicating Officer, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Rajasthan (for brevity-'the AO') under the provisions of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for brevity-'the Act of 2016')- A preliminary objection as to jurisdiction of the AO to entertain the complaints was raised by the appellant herein; but, the AO directed the appellant to file its reply to the complaint. The aforesaid direction was assailed by the appellant by way of the writ petition which did not find favour with the learned Single Judge.

4. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant, drawing attention of this Court towards various provisions contained in the Act of 2016, such as Section 31, Section 71 and Rule 35 of the Rules of 2017, submitted that the AO did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent no.4 inasmuch the scheme of the Act and the Rules empowers the AO to award compensation and interest only. He contended that the AO has no jurisdiction to pass an order for refund of the amount in favour of a private complainant, a power which rests with the regulating authority only. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Agarwal vs. Nagreeka Exports (P) Ltd. & Anr.-(2002) 10 SCC 101 and a division bench judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP No.38144 of 2018 and other connected matters dated 16.10.2020 in support of his submissions.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the order dated 7.7.2021 passed by the AO in the complaints filed by the respondents no.4 reveals that the appellant herein was directed to file reply to the complaints. There has been no adjudication by the AO on the preliminary objection raised by the appellant as to its jurisdiction. Therefore, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition to restrain the AO to entertain the complaints filed by the respondents no.4 has rightly not been entertained by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the AO is yet to take a decision on the objection raised by the appellant as to its jurisdiction. Direction of the AO to the appellant to file reply to the complaints does not amount to assumption of jurisdiction by the AO or rejection of the preliminary objection raised by the appellant. It is well settled principle of law that a Court or a Tribunal or an authority dealing with the inter se rights of the parties to a lis has inherent jurisdiction to decide the question of its own competence/jurisdiction to entertain the lis. A division Bench of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has, in the case of United Steel Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.-MANU/AP/0109/1997, held as under:

"10. One of the settled principles of law is that a court, tribunal or authority of limited jurisdiction can decide upon its own jurisdiction and in case it decides wrongly and assumes jurisdiction, the superior court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, can always examine the jurisdictional facts and decide whether the issue of limited jurisdiction has been properly determined by the court, tribunal or authority of limited jurisdiction, or not. This, according to us, should not detain us any further beyond observing that the petitioner, which has received notice from the special court in M.P. No. 68 of 1994, if so advised, can raise objection as to the jurisdiction of the Special Court