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

2026 Supreme(HP) 387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 
Pawan Wasant Borle - Petitioner 
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
CWP No. 1153 of 2026
Decided On : 25-02-2026
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Sheetal Vyas, CGC, Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Raman Ravi Verma, Advocate.

Recovery of Regulatory Authority compensation as land revenue arrears cannot be stalled by vesting of project land in State; alternative statutory modes like arrest, movable sale, other property proceedings must be invoked promptly.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 11, 18, 19, 40; H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 - Section 103, Chapter VI (Sections 74-84); H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 - Sections 118(1), 118(3)

(D) - Recovery of compensation and interest awarded by Regulatory Authority, treated as arrears of land revenue - Proceedings cannot be halted merely because project land vested in State Government under Tenancy Act - Vesting does not defeat recovery order; alternative modes under Land Revenue Act such as writ of demand, arrest and detention, distress and sale of movables, proceedings against other immovables must be pursued expeditiously - Explicit statutory procedure must be adhered to without deviation.

Facts of the case:
Petitioner booked housing unit in community project promoted by respondents, paid substantial part consideration, agreement executed but possession not delivered. Regulatory Authority allowed complaint directing refund of amount paid with interest at 9.3% p.a. from dates of payments, jointly and severally. Non-compliance led to execution petition, recovery certificate issued, amount declared recoverable as land revenue arrears. Proceedings initiated by Tehsildar but stalled citing vesting of project land in State.

Findings of Court:
Recovery proceedings pursuant to Regulatory Authority order, recovery certificate and demand order to be taken to logical conclusion in accordance with law using prescribed modes.

Issues: Whether recovery proceedings for Regulatory Authority's monetary award can be stopped solely due to vesting of subject land in State; interplay between Tenancy Act vesting and Land Revenue Act recovery mechanisms.

Ratio Decidendi: Finality of Regulatory Authority order entitling petitioner to monetary compensation cannot be undermined by vesting of specific land; Land Revenue Act provides comprehensive alternatives for enforcement despite changes in defaulter's assets, ensuring legislative intent and creditor rights are not frustrated.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to District Collector to ensure expeditious recovery.

Table of Content
1. writ petition confined to rera order enforcement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 4 which is waived by Ms. Sheetal Vyas, learned CGC, Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Raman Ravi Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, respondents No. 2 & 3 and respondent No.4, respectively.

This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

(a) To issue writ to the effect that the provision contained in State Legislation as contained in Section 118 (1) and Section 118 (3) (D) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 as amended from time to time shall give way to the provisions as envisaged in Sections 11, 18, 19 and 40 of Parliamentary Legislation Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
(b) To quash the Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8 to the extent the operation of recovery certificate issued under Section 40(1) Annexure P-4 (Colly.) is precluded and hindered.
(c) To recover the total amount, declared as arrear of land revenue vide Annexure P-5 dated 14.11.2022 alongwith interest @9.3% per annum from the date of each payment by sale of properties as mentioned in Annexure P-2 or in alternate by and other mode.
(d) To issue mandate with direction to respondent No. 2 & 3 to execute and comply the orders passed by the respondent No.4 Annexure P-3 and Annexure P- 4(Colly.) in terms of Section 103 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954.”


After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is under instructions to confine this writ petition only for relief (d) and other prayers be treated as having been given up. Prayer is accepted. This writ petition is accordingly being heard only for considering relief (d).
In view of writ petition having been confined only to relief (d), submissions made by learned counsel for the appearing parties, pleadings and nature of order being passed hereinafter, notice of this writ petition is not required to be issued to respondents No. 5 & 6. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The case set up by the petitioner:-
(i) Respondents No. 5 & 6 represented themselves as promoters of Community Housing Project by the name of “Aamoksh @ Kasauli” which was being constructed by them on land comprised in Khasra Nos. 142/35/2, 143/35/2, 125/13/2, 126/13/2 (Old Khasra Nos.) which have since been assigned new Khasra Nos. i.e. 129/1, 135, 128, 138/1, 146, 129, 136 at Mohal Joul, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. Respondents No. 5 & 6 had projected themselves to be the owners of the aforesaid land purchased by them in the year 2009 and further that they had all requisite permissions from the Competent Authorities for developing the project including all approvals for setting up housing colony from the Department of Town & Country Planning, H.P. The petitioner acted upon the representation of respondents No. 5 & 6 and booked one housing unit for sale consideration of Rs.88,00,000/-. An agreement to sale was executed by respondents No. 5 & 6 with the petitioner on 26.05.2015. The petitioner paid Rs.78,00,491/- as part consideration to respondents No. 5 & 6, they however, did not abide by terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 26.05.2015. Possession of the housing unit in question was however not delivered to the petitioner.
ii) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner invoked Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The complaint filed by the petitioner was contested by respondents No. 5 & 6. The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) allowed the complaint on 26.02.2021 as under:-

i. The Complaints are allowed and the Respondent Promoters are directed to return/refund the amount to the Complainants as under:-
a. Ms. Ashima Sharma- Rs. Twelve lakhs, seventy six thousand, six hundred and forty five (Rs.12,76, 645/-)
b. Shri Pawan Wasant Borle- Rs. Seventy eigh
























































































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