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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Vinod S. Bhardwaj, JJ.
Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India And Ors – Respondent
CWP Nos. 6688, 13639, 13831, 13839, 13841, 13844, 13846, 13848, 13850, 13851, 13854, 13856, 13862, 13865, 13869, 13875, 13878, 13883, 13887, 13889, 14445, 14448, 14449, 14452, 14453, 14455, 14456, 14459, 18011, 18012, 18014, 18016, 18019, 18022, 18025, 18028, 18032, 18033, 18111, 18115, 18120,18123, 18130, 18135, 18141, 18144, 18151, 18157, 18159, 18162, 18164, 18165, 18175, 18181 of 2021 with CWP Nos.5776, 5780, 14466, 14470, 14477, 14480, 14485, 14844, 14851, 14901, 14903 of 2021 with CWP Nos.4273 and 4278 of 2021 with CWP Nos.15381, 16393, 19054, 19056, 17136, 17196 of 2021 with CWP Nos.2425, 2426, 2427, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2647 and 2648 of 2021 with CWP Nos.21908, 21909, 21910, 21919, 21966, 22001 and of 2020
Decided On : 03-01-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Arun Walia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Marinal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Swati Dayalan and Ms. Nitika Sharma, Advocates, Mr. Mukul Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Mittal and Mr. Akshat Mittal, Advocates, for the petitioners in their respective cases.
For the Respondent:Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Sobit Phutela, Advocate and Ms. Tanvi Jain, Advocate for Union of India. Mr.Ankur Mittal, Additional AG Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant AG Haryana. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate and Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate for respondent-RERA. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Jain, Mr. Abhay Jain and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates, Mr. Anurag Jain and Ms. Preeti Taneja, Advocates, Mr. Narender Kumar Sharma and Ms. Suman Sharma, Advocates, Mr. Tanuj Aggarwal and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. Govind Rishi and Mr. Saurabh Gulia, Advocates, Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Manish Shukla, Mr.Nilotpal Shyam and Ms. Shivali, Advocates, for private respondents.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 12, 14, 18, 19, and 43(5) - Jurisdiction of the Authority to direct refund of amounts and interest - High Court’s power under Article 226 - The court found that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the refund and interest but cannot determine compensation, which is the domain of the Adjudicating Officer - Pre-deposit requirement under RERA is aimed to protect consumers and is not considered onerous unless extraordinary circumstances are proven by the promoters - The petitioners were not able to demonstrate hardship or inability to comply with pre-deposit; their appeals are to be heard on merits if the deposits are made within the stipulated time. (Paras 17, 18, 22, 26, 50)

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

The two questions that arise for consideration in the present batch of petitions relates to the jurisdiction of Authority to direct refund of the amount with/without of interest and the power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to relax the condition of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA Act, 2016.

2. By this common order, we intend to dispose of a batch of writ petitions involving common questions of law. To demonstrate the similarity of issues, reference to the prayers from lead case of each batch have been extracted.

The said writ petitions have been filed by respective Companies against the orders passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective developers have submitted that the averments contained in the various writ petitions filed on behalf of the respective developers are identical to their lead cases and stands corroborated by learned counsel appearing for respondent-HSIIDC. The counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the matters also submitted that they have not raised any challenge to the vires of statutory provision under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulatory and Development) Act 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2016') and instead seek to invoke the indulgence of the Writ Court since the condition of pre-deposit is onerous. The extra ordinary jurisdiction is being invoked to obviate the hardship faced by the petitioners.

FACTS

1st Batch (Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.)

3. Reference to the facts of the case is made from CWP No.6688 of 2021.

The petitioner herein has made the following prayers:-

    'a) issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to not proceed with Execution Proceedings dated 01.12.2020 (Annexure P-9) as the same are being carried out in respect of an order dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-6), which itself had been passed illegally and without jurisdiction, more particularly in view of the orders dated 05.11.2020 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

    b) Issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Ld. Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.3, to entertain the Appeal of the petitioner against order dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.4, without requiring the petitioner to first deposit with the Appellate Tribunal the amount to be paid to the Allottee, as per the aforementioned order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Respondent No.4, thereby waiving the condition of pre-deposit as mandated by Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016;

    c) issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI, seeking quashing of order dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Respondent No.4, in Complaint No.2785; titled as “Geeta versus Ramprastha Developers and Promoter Pvt. Ltd., the same besides being, inter alia, illegal and arbitrary, is also without jurisdiction inasmuch as respondent No.4 has misdirected itself in entertaining and deciding the Complaint filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.5, especially when the same had been filed in such form/manner and/or seeking such relief, which as per the scheme of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 could only be said to be maintainable before the Adjudicating Officer and not before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority;

    d) issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI, seeking quashing of order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Ld. Execution Court;'

3.1) That the petitioner-Company had allotted apartment/flatNo.903, 9th Floor, Tower-B in a Group Housing Project namely ‘Rise’ situated in Sector-37, District Gurugram having a super area of approximately 1765 sq. ft. in favour of respondent No.5. The flat buyer agreement was executed on 31.12.2012 whereby the

      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