Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Regent Land Holdings Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab on its own Motion – Respondent
Rera Appeal No. 52 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023
For the Parties : Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu
Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 - Section 3 and Section 59 - Penalty imposed on appellant for non-registration of real estate project - Appellate Authority dismisses appeal, but court allows appeal for fresh adjudication due to substantial rights involved - Appellant’s right to be heard emphasized. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
(B) Opportunity of hearing - Legal principle that parties should have the opportunity to present their case, especially when penalties affect their rights. (Para 8)
(C) Power of review and compliance - Discussion on the deletion of review powers under Regulation 22 and its implications for the appellant. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was penalized Rs. 70 lakhs by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority due to failure to register a project, resulting in an ex parte decision. The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the importance of the appellant's rights and allowed a remand for fresh adjudication, emphasizing fairness in the process.
Issues: Whether the appellant had sufficient grounds to challenge the penalty and enforce their right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized the necessity of granting the appellant a fair opportunity to represent themselves and reassess the penalty in light of compliance with relevant laws.
Result: Appeal allowed, orders set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging dismissal of earlier appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appeal was delayed but sought reconsideration. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court grants opportunity for fresh adjudication. (Para 8) |
| 5. disposal of appeal with specific conditions. (Para 9 , 10) |
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
CM-3762-C-2023
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit and makes out sufficient cause, the same is allowed and delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
MAIN CASE
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to an judgment dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, dismissing the First Appeal filed at the instance of present appellant.
2. In the present case, on a complaint received against the appellant for not having registered its real estate project namely “Blessings City” Airport Road, Amritsar, proceedings under the provisions of Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2016 Act’) were invoked alleging violation of Section 3 thereof, contemplating proceedings under Section 59 against the appellant. In the aforesaid proceedings, the appellant was proceeded against ex parte and vide order dated 16.12.2021, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) imposed a penalty of Rs. 70 lakhs upon appellant. The operative portion thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
“As such imposition of penalty under section 59 of the Act is completely warranted. The Authority’s representative has contended that the total project cost would be higher than Rs.8.19 crores which was the cost of land alone. I however do not agree. No other costs have been mentioned in the reference received from the Amritsar Development Authority. I therefore take the cost of the project as 8.19 crores. The maximum penalty under the law is 10% of the cost of the land and in the circumstances a penalty of Rs.70,00 lakhs is imposed upon the respondent. This penalty should be deposited in this Authority by way of demand draft issued in its name i.e. ‘Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab’ payable at Chandigarh. The needful be done within two months from the date of issue of this order. If the amount is not deposited within the specified time, recovery certificate be issued to the District Collector, Amritsar for effecting recovery under Rule 24 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017.”
3. Aggrieve thereof, the appellant approached the Appellate Authority with some delay, requesting for setting aside of the order dated 16.12.2021 primarily for grant of opportunity so as to represent itself before ‘the Authority.’ The learned Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 09.12.2022 declined to interfere with the order passed by ‘the Authority’ primarily for reason that there was explanation offered for non-appearance despite proper service, still permitted the appellant to approach the Authority for seeking recalling of the impugned order, if permissible in law.
4. By way of present appeal, order dated 09.12.2022 passed by learned Appellate Authority has been impugned.
5. While referring to Regulation 22 of the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Procedure for Handling Complaints and Related matters), 2017, which earlier existed on the statute book, learned counsel for appellant submits that the power of review vested with ‘the Authority’ or the ‘Adjudicating Officer’ as previously provided under Regulation 22 now stands deleted w.e.f. 21.01.2022 which thus bars the Authority to exercise the powers of review and also prohibits the appellant to legally avail remedy of recalling/review the order. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that the order passed in the absence of appellant by the Authority has caused serious prejudice to its rights, as there was sufficient mat
