The court emphasized the necessity for regulatory compliance and document verification under the RERA Act to protect home buyers from fraudulent practices in real estate.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Amit Borkar, J.)

1. The petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of mandamus to enforce statutory compliance and establish accountability among the State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), and local planning authorities. The petitioner contends that under Sections 32 and 34 of the RERA Act, MahaRERA is vested with powers to facilitate an effective regulatory mechanism, which includes devising methods to ensure the verification of documents submitted by developers. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the lack of coordination between MahaRERA and local authorities contravenes the fundamental objectives of the RERA Act, particularly the protection of home buyers from fraudulent real estate practices. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the Court's intervention to direct respondents to adopt a rational policy framework to prevent registration of illegal buildings and to verify the authenticity of documentation submitted for project registration.

2. The petitioner emphasizes that Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the RERA Act require developers to obtain a valid registration certificate by submitting genuine project details, including approvals from competent authorities. The Government Resolution dated 3rd May 2018 serves as a legal mandate under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 , and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, requiring local authorities to maintain and disclose public record of legal and illegal constructions. This is crucial for safeguarding potential buyers, in line with the objectives of the RERA Act. Additionally, the Government Resolution dated 20th September 2019 restricts the registration of projects that lack RERA certification or a completion certificate, reaffirming the intent to prohibit registration of projects developed without requisite approvals. These measures reflect a legislative and administrative commitment to protect public interest, and the petitioner argues that the respondents must implement them to prevent malpractices in the real estate sector.

3. The petitioner submits that the project by respondent No.5, allegedly registered on 15th October 2020 based on a forged commencement certificate, illustrate a larger issue of developers exploiting regulatory loopholes. The petitioner points to widespread unauthorized construction in approximately 27 villages within Kalyan and Ambarnath Talukas, suggesting that developers circumvent compliance requirements by creating forged documents. The petitioner argues that under Section 7 of the RERA Act, MahaRERA possesses the authority to revoke registrations obtained through fraudulent means, and thus a coordinated mechanism is essential to detect and deter such malpractice. The petitioner further requests this Court to issue guidelines for a framework that ensures prompt verification of essential documents, such as commencement and occupation certificates, to maintain transparency and prevent wrongful project registrations.

4. In response to the Court’s notice, MahaRERA states in its affidavit that it has exercised its powers under Section 7(1) of the RERA Act, which authorizes the Authority to revoke project registration in cases of fraudulent documentation. The Authority's decision to revoke the project registration of respondent No.5 on 8th September 2021 aligns with Section 7(4)(c), which empowers MahaRERA to freeze accounts related to non-compliant projects, preventing further transactions that could affect innocent purchasers. MahaRERA further submits that it has urged the Government