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

2025 Supreme(Ori) 696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K. Pattanaik, J.
Chandramani Behera - Appellant
Versus
Bhimsen Guru and others – Respondents
M.S.A No.17 of 2025
Decided On : 13-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Advocate

A landowner actively involved in a project and sharing profits can be deemed a co-promoter under RERA, thus liable for statutory deposit requirements.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 2(zk) and Section 43(5) - Nature of landowner’s liability - Appellant, being a landowner with 30% share in project flats, was deemed a co-promoter subject to statutory deposit requirements under RERA - Landowner's obligations under developmental agreements and their implications - Court held underlined involvement of landowner necessitates liability to deposit - Court affirmed prior order denying exemption from the deposit. (Paras 5, 16, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant entered into a Development Agreement for a real estate project where he would hold a 30% share of the residential flats. Following defaults by the buyer, disputes led to a complaint and demand for compensation, resulting in the appellant's appeal regarding statutory deposit requirements.

Findings of Court:
The appellant must be treated as a co-promoter due to significant involvement in the project as per the Development Agreement, invoking liability for the statutory deposit.

Issues: Whether the appellant, as a landowner and not a statutory promoter, is liable for the deposit required under the RERA Act?

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant’s role and financial interest rendered him a co-promoter, justifying the statutory deposit under the RERA.

Result: Appeal dismissed, affirming the OREAT’s order requiring statutory deposit.

Table of Content
1. background of the real estate project and agreement. (Para 1 , 2)
2. positioning of the appellant as landowner vs. promoter. (Para 3 , 4)
3. formulation of substantial questions of law. (Para 5)
4. discussions on relevant case laws. (Para 6 , 8)
5. understanding of statutory deposits under rera. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. interpretation of the promoter's definition under rera. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. court upholds the necessity of the statutory deposit. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. final order of the court. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is filed by the appellant assailing the impugned order dated 7th February, 2025 passed in connection with I.A. No.105 of 2024 of the learned Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (shortly as ‘the OREAT’) arising out of OREAT Appeal No.181 of 2023, whereby, an application pressed into service by him seeking exemption from payment of the statutory amount as required under Section 43 (5) of the Act was dismissed on the grounds inter alia that such decision demanding the deposit is not legally tenable and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

2. As per the pleading on record, the appellant is the landowner and was approached by respondent No.2 for its development into a real estate project and accordingly, a Development Agreement as per Annexure-1 was entered into between them preceded by execution of an Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 14th March, 2012 i.e. Annexure-2. The further pleading is that as per the said agreement, respondent No.2 was required to carry out the developmental work on the land of the appellant and to construct a residential project by the name and style ‘Home Town’, while the appellant having 30% share in the built up area of the flats. It is stated that respondent No.1 had shown interest to purchase a flat in the residential project and accordingly, approached the appellant, who offered him to sale a 2BHK flat in the first floor having a super built up area of 1260 sq. ft. out of his share of flats and for that, respondent No.2 issued a no objection certificate for the purpose of its production before the Bank and consequently, on 30th March, 2017, a Tripartite Agreement for sale was executed, whereby, the flat was allotted in favour of respondent No.1 for a sale consideration of Rs.34,60,039/- excluding taxes and in that connection, 10% of the consideration amount was paid in cash to the appellant towards booking price and the rest was payable to him as per payment schedule. It is further stated that apart from the agreement dated 30th March, 2017 at Annexure-3, the parties and the Bank entered into a Quadripartite Agreement dated 5th June, 2017 at Annexure-4for the purpose of loan in favour of respondent No.1 for an amount of Rs.23 lac and such loan was sanctioned on 16th May, 2017, whereafter, the margin money of Rs.11,60,039 was paid to the appellant.

2.1. In the meanwhile, the Act came into force on 1st May, 2017 and pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 being the promoter applied for registration under Section 3 thereof for the project and accordingly, it was granted vide Annexure-5. As respondent No.1, thereafter, defaulted in making payments to the appellant as well as the Bank, on 8th November, 2018., the latter issued a letter to the appellant calling upon him to submit the registered sale deed executed in the name of the former as it had already remitted the loan amount and upon receiving the same, it was informed by him in reply to Annexure-6 that respondent No.1 has also defaulted in making payment of the margin money despite several reminders. As per the appellant, besides the above letter dated 3rd December, 2018 at Annexuxre-7, he had correspondence as per Annexure-8 with respondent No.1 requesting him to pay the amount before 5th June, 2017, failing which, the agreement to be terminated.

2.2. A

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top