The term "aggrieved person" under the relevant statute is restricted to individuals directly regulated by the law, such as allottees or promoters. A third party, including an adjoining landowner, lacks the locus standi to initiate complaint proceedings for non-compliance against a real estate development project.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 31(1) - Locus standi - "Aggrieved person" - Construction of phrase - To qualify as an aggrieved person, one must be connected to the project or possess a legal right conferred by the enactment to challenge the activity. A stranger or bystander lacking a nexus with the project cannot initiate adversarial proceedings. (Paras 11, 13, 14)

(B) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 3(2)(b) - Project registration - Projects completed before commencement of the statute, with occupation certificates received, are exempt from mandatory registration. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed by an individual owning land adjacent to a development site, alleging various illegalities and an absence of project registration under the governing statute. The initial authority rejected the complaint, noting the individual was not an allottee and the project was completed prior to the law coming into effect. The appellate tribunal affirmed this decision, citing a lack of standing for the complainant to pursue such remedies.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the phrase "aggrieved person" under the statute is limited to those governed by the enactment, such as allottees, promoters, or registered consumer associations. An owner of an adjoining property, unconnected to the project, lacks the legal standing to maintain a complaint against a developer under the framework of the specified statute.

Issues: Whether an individual who is not an "allottee" has the locus standi to file a complaint under the provisions of the statute regarding the development of a real estate project.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the statutory definition of an "aggrieved person" must be interpreted in light of the objective of the legislation. Extending this status to any unrelated person alleging general legal violations would be inconsistent with the regulatory scheme. Consequently, the party lacked the requisite legal right to invoke the jurisdiction of the authority.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT (JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

1. This appeal is filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short “RERA Act”) challenging the order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal).

Brief Facts :

2. The Appellant is an individual having land adjoining to the plot developed by Respondent No.3 known as ‘Blue Heaven’. The Appellant is not an allottee in the said project of Respondent No.3. On 23rd August 2017, the Appellant lodged a written complaint with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Regulatory Authority) alleging various illegality committed by the Respondent in the development of building named ‘Blue Heaven’ situated at Palidevad, Sukapur, Tal - Panvel, District Raigad including allegation of encroachment by Respondent No.3 on the land of the Appellant. The Appellant complainant also alleged that the said project has been constructed without registration under the provisions of the RERA Act. The Appellant complainant contended that Respondent No.3 has used FSI belonging to his land to develop the project. The Appellant also alleged trespassing by Respondent No.3.

3. On 26th April, 2019, the Regulatory Authority disposed of the above referred complaint on the ground that since the Respondent No.3 has completed the project prior to the commencement of the RERA Act, the project is not required to be registered under Section 3 of the RERA Act. The Regulatory Authority also noted the submission of the Respondent No.3 that since the Appellant is not an “allottee” or “interested person” in the said building. The complaint was dismissed by the Regulatory Authority.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Regulatory Authority, the Appellant filed an appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act wherein various irregularities committed by the Respondent were alleged. The said appeal was filed by the Appellant on 25th June, 2019.

5. On 13th February, 2023, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on various grounds including on the ground of locus standi of the Appellant to take recourse to the proceedings under the RERA Act. The Appellate Tribunal, however observed that if any other proceedings are filed by the Appellant for the redressal of his grievance then the observation made by the Appellate Tribunal shall have no bearing on those proceedings.

6. It is against the above order of the Appellate Tribunal that the Appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court. Various questions of law have been raised by the Appellant. However, the only question pressed into service and which arises from the order of the Appellate Tribunal is reframed as under :

“Whether the Appellant can be said to have Locus standi in filing the complaint under the RERA Act ?”

7. Submission of the Appellant : The Appellant submits that the RERA authority vide Circular dated 24th July, 2017 numbered 9 of 2017 had invited the citizens to inform the authority of the projects which are not registered. The said information was to be given on the e-mail ID of the authority. The Appellant further relied on Circular No.18 of 2018 to contend that the authorities themselves intimated the citizens to inform about the projects which do not have the appropriate approvals of the planning authority. The Appellant, therefore, submitted that it was on the basis of these Circulars that the complaint was lodged by him with the authority and therefore he has a Locus standi to pursue the remedies provided under the RERA Act and he is to be treated as an “aggrieved person” for filing complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Bolaikar and with his assistance have perused the records of the appeal paper book filed with this Court.

Analysis & Conclusion :

9. The moot question which requires to be examined in the present appeal is whether the Appellant can be said to be an “aggrieved person” for filing complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 26578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2023 Dr. Yogesh Keshav BeleVersusMaharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. Mr. Vidyadhar Bolaikar for the Appellant.None for the Respondents. CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2023.