Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Sudhir Mittal, J.
M/s Parador Developers (amritsar) Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab And Another - Respondent
R E R A Appeal No. 19 of 2020
Decided On : 27-11-2020
Shekhar Verma, Advocate, P.S. Bajwa, Advocate
The court established that the Authority has no power to reduce the time period mentioned in the declaration without granting an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote:
Change of Land Use - Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 - Section 58, Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Nazir Mohamed Vs. J. Kamala and others, (2020) 3 RCR(Civ) 684 - Neel Kamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others,2017 SCConlineBombay 9302 - Section 4(2)(l), Section 5(3)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought permission for change of land use for development of a residential colony. The registration period was reduced by the Authority, leading to a statutory appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Authority had no power to reduce the time period mentioned in the declaration and directed a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Issues: The substantial questions of law were whether the Authority was justified in reducing the period of registration despite the statutory prescription and whether the appellant was entitled to grant of an opportunity of hearing before the period of registration was reduced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant sections of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 and held that the Authority has no power to reduce the time period mentioned in the declaration without granting an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the orders impugned were set aside. The case was remitted to the Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. - Vide request dated 13.10.2017, the appellant sought permission for change of land use of an area measuring 93.265 acres for development of a residential colony. The Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, granted permission for change of land use vide its memo dated 17.10.2017. Consequently, an application for grant of licence was made to the Amritsar Development Authority, who, granted the licence vide its memo dated 13.06.2019. Licence period was 5 years ending on 12.06.2024. Thus, application dated 10.09.2019 was filed before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority) for registration of Phase-I of the residential colony under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A declaration in Form-B was also filed stating that the development work would be completed on or before 12.06.2024. There is no dispute that Phase-I of the residential colony covers an area of 70.264 acres wherein residential plots are to be developed. Phase-II covers the rest of the land and pertains to development of a group housing colony. Vide memo dated 4.10.2019, Phase-I was registered but the validity thereof was reduced by one year i.e. upto 12.06.2023. The appellant sought a clarification and vide memo dated 13.11.2019. The Authority clarified that registration was uptill 12.06.2023 only as the group housing component was not being executed in Phase-I. Thus, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.2 but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2020. Hence, the present appeal has been filed under Section 58 of the Act.
2. A perusal of Section 58 of the Act shows that an order of the Appellate Tribunal can be challenged on any one or more grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). Section 100 of the CPC provides that the High Court can hear an appeal from a decree passed in appeal by a Court subordinate to the High Court if it is specified that the case involves substantial question of law. The meaning of the expression 'substantial question of law' is no longer res integra. Yet, reference is being made to Nazir Mohamed Vs. J. Kamala and others, (2020) 3 RCR(Civ) 684 wherein after examination of precedents, it has been held:-
"32. To be "substantial", a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either way."
3. In the grounds of appeal certain legal issues have been raised. However, the substantial questions of law which arise in this case are :
(a) Whether the Authority was justified in reducing the period of registration despite the statutory prescription mentioned under Section 5(3) of the Act.
(b) Whether the appellant was entitled to grant of an opportunity of hearing before the period of registration was reduced.
4. Section 4(2)(l) of the Act stipulates that an application for registration of the project shall enclose various documents, one of which would be a declaration supported by an affidavit signed by the promoter or authorized person wherein statement would be made of a number of facts including the time period within which he undertakes to complete the project or phase thereof. Section 5(3) of the Act states that the registration granted thereunder shall be valid for a period declared by the promoter under sub-clause (C) of clause (l) of sub-section 2 of Section 4. Section 4(2)(l)(C) is reproduced below:-
" 4. Application for registration of real estate projects:-
(1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) The promoter shall enclose the following documents along with the application referred to in sub-section (1), namely:-
(a) to (k) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(l) a declaration, supported by an affidavit, which shall be signed by the promoter or any pers
