Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ., ASHISH NAITHANI
Raj Kumar Saini – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate, Haridwar – Respondent
Judgment :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent nos. 1 to 3 & Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for respondent no. 5.
2. On oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Raj Kumar Saini and Archana as respondents to the present Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the attachment and auction proceedings initiated by the respondent-authorities in pursuance of the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 - Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (for short, hereinafter referred to as “RERA”) in Case No. 188/2018, and also for quashing of the sale proclamation and auction notice dated 16.12.2025, and auction notification dated 03.01.2026 to the extent the same relates to the land and property of the petitioner, and for restraining the respondents from proceeding any further with the auction scheduled on 17.01.2026, and for deciding the petitioner’s objection dated 17.11.2025 and 29.12.2025.
4. The facts in brief, necessary for disposal of the instant Writ Petition, are as follows :
The petitioner entered into
Landowner transferring possession, mortgage and sale rights to developer via agreement held 'promoter' under RERA s.2(zk), jointly liable for allottee refunds; auction stayed on installment payment, ....
The definition of 'promoter' under RERA allows for developers without land ownership to register projects, and failure by UPRERA to act within statutory timeframes results in deemed registration.
The court upheld the requirement for total deposit of compensation and interest before hearing appeals under the Real Estate Act, affirming RERA's jurisdiction over disputes involving landowners as a....
Third-party purchasers cannot enforce rights against a society after the termination of the developer's agreement; their remedies lie solely with the developer.
Allottees possess an unqualified right under section 18 of the Act to withdraw from the project and demand refunds if possession is not delivered in accordance with the agreement, emphasizing timely ....
Landowners do not qualify as 'promoters' under the Act post-divestment; complaints against them were not maintainable.
A party cannot benefit from its own default; the court upheld the cancellation of allotment due to non-payment of dues.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
