The court interpreted the provisions of the Act of 2016 to determine the competence of one member to pass the order and the mechanism for recovery of amounts as arrears of land revenue, aligning with the object of the Act to provide speedy dispute redressal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Manish Singh with Sri Pratik Chandra and Sri Azhar Ikram, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Wasim Masood has put in appearance on behalf of respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the section 24(a) of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulation, 2019 as ultra vires and contrary to the section 21 and 85 of the RERA Act.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 20.11.2019 passed Regulatory Authority/Bench No. I, U.P. RERA Regional Office, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Complaint No. NCR144030675/2019 (Ms. Munni Vs. M/s Unibera Developers Ltd.).

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned Recovery Certificate dated 4.3.2020 issued by opposite party no. 4.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to give effect the impugned recovery certificate dated 4.3.2020 issued by opposite party no. 4.

(v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the state respondents not to initiate coercive measures pursuant to the impugned recovery certificate issued by opposite party no. 4."

3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short "RERA") dated 20.11.2019 though an appeal against the said order lies under Section 43(5) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short "Act of 2016").

4. It is a case where a complaint was filed by the non-petitioner alleging that despite payment towards unit No. T3 1202 in the scheme introduced by the petitioner, the possession of a unit has not been given. The unit (flat) which was booked and was to be delivered in the year 2017. The prayer was made for refund of the amount of Rs.14,94,285/- with interest. The Authority found that as per the agreement entered between the parties, possession of the flat in question should have been delivered by 2017. The petitioner-Company failed to show delivery of possession of the flat in question. Thus, taking into consideration the default of the Promoter (petitioner herein) and referring to the judgment of Apex Court, an order was passed by RERA on 20.11.2019 for refund of the principal amount alongwith interest. In pursuance thereof, order dated 20.11.2019 was issued for its execution. The amount of Rs.14,94,285/- was shown towards the principal amount while component of interest was Rs.7,36,074.61/-. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge not only the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by RERA but the recovery certificate dated 4.3.2020 on the execution application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal against the order passed by RERA is maintainable but this case has exceptional circumstances thus even a writ petition would be maintainable. One member of RERA has passed the order going against the Act of 2016. Section 21 provides for formation of Authority consist of Chairperson alongwith two whole time Members. The impugned order is by one Member alone going against the mandate of Section 21 of the Act of 2016. In view of the above, there is no need to prefer an appeal as the order dated 20.11.2019 is without jurisdiction.

6. It is also stated that the order to award interest by the Authority is again going contrary to the provisions. Rules for award of interest was introduced in the year 2018. The amount deposited with the Promotor has been ordered to be returned with interest. The interest has been allowed even for the period prior to introduction of U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2018 (in short "Rules of 2018"). It is even ignoring the rate of interest agreed by the parties. Challenge to the order has been made on that ground also.

7. We are first taking challenge to the order dated 20.11.2019, passed by the Authority to find out as to whether one member was