Discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen settled matters that have attained finality, even if a subsequent judicial pronouncement alters the legal understanding of the authority's jurisdiction, especially when the party has failed to exhaust statutory remedies within the limitation period due to unexplained laches.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate Regulation - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Finality of orders - Writ court must exercise discretion in reopening concluded cases where statutory appeal period has long expired - Subsequent jurisprudential developments cannot serve as a ground for reopening matters that attained finality without challenge. (Paras 47, 48, 53)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with orders that have attained finality - Principle that oversight of judicial precedents does not permit the revival of long-closed disputes - Necessity of vigilance in exercising extraordinary remedies. (Para 16, 51)

Facts of the case:
A developer sought to quash an order for the refund of monies and subsequent recovery proceedings, asserting that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to pass such orders based on a subsequent interpretation of law by the supreme judicial body. The order had remained unchallenged for years, and the developer sought to invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to set aside these crystallized rights.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the significant delay in approaching the writ court, emphasizing that the impugned order had attained finality years prior. It held that the subsequent interpretation of law did not justify disturbing closed and concluded matters. The court maintained that statutory remedies ought to have been exhausted, and the exercise of extraordinary discretion was unwarranted in light of the delay and the availability of alternative forums for raising contentions.

Issues: Whether an order of refund passed by a quasi-judicial authority can be declared a nullity based on a subsequent judicial declaration of law despite the expiry of the statutory appeal period and the presence of significant laches.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to disturb settled legal positions and crystallized rights, particularly where a party has failed to pursue statutory remedies within the prescribed timeframe. Subsequent judicial clarification of law does not automatically invalidate orders that have reached finality, especially when the party seeking intervention has been indolent.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Judgement:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

Context and Factual Background:

2. The Writ Petition raises an interesting question as to whether an order dated December 17, 2019 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Learned Adjudicating Officer of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”), is rendered non est by reason of the law declared by the Supreme Court in 2021, interpreting the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”). The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash and set aside the Impugned Order and another order dated October 8, 2021 (“Recovery Order”) passed in recovery proceedings, on the premise that they are in conflict with the law subsequently declared by the Supreme Court.

3. The relevant facts for purpose of adjudicating this Petition fall in a rather narrow compass and are summarized below:-

A] A Learned Adjudicating Officer of the Authority passed the Impugned Order directing refund of the amount of Rs.1,35,99,246/- along with interest @10.20% per annum paid to the Petitioner, Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. (“Marvel”) by Respondent No.5, Mr. Siddharth Mohan Palesha, (“Flat Purchaser”) until realisation;

B] The Impugned Order was not challenged within the statutory period available for an Appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act;

C] On October 8, 2021, on account of non-compliance with the Impugned Order, an order was passed for issuance of recovery warrant (“Recovery Order”). Execution of RERA’s order for refund of monies is to be effected as if the penalties were arrears of land revenue under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966;

D] On November 11, 2021, the Supreme Court passed a judgment in the case of Newtech^{1 Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP – (2021) 18 SCC 1 which, according to Marvel, renders the Impugned Order and the Recovery Order non est; and}

E] According to Marvel, an Adjudicating Officer can only pass orders relating to compensation while an order of refund cannot be passed by the Adjudicating Officer, and towards this end, the law declared in Newtech is sought to be pressed into service.

Core Issue:

4. The short question to be considered for adjudicating in this Petition is whether pursuant to the law declared in Newtech, Marvel would be entitled to immunity from compliance with the Impugned Order on the premise that the law as declared in Newtech, has rendered the Impugned Order non est in the eyes of law. Put differently, the case of Marvel is that Newtech has rendered the Impugned Order, although passed in the past and having attained finality in the absence of a challenge under a statutory appeal, even now the Impugned Order can be quashed as being a product of exercise of power by an authority without jurisdiction.

Contentions of the Parties:

5. Against this backdrop, I have heard at length Mr. Amit Gharte, Learned Advocate for Marvel and Mr. Abhishek Kothari, Learned Advocate for the Flat Purchasers, and, with their assistance, examined the materials relied upon by them in furtherance of their submissions.

6. Mr. Gharte would submit that in view of the law declared in Newtech, this Court should declare that the Learned Adjudicating Officer who passed the Impugned Order was wholly without jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to order a refund along with interest is unavailable under Section 71 of the RERA Act, he would submit, contending therefore, that any attempt to execute the Impugned Order would be illegal. Mr. Gharte would also rely upon a decision of a Learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Marveledge^{2 Marveledge Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra – judgement dated September 13, 2024 in Writ Petition No.10912 of 2022. He would also draw my attention to other decisions of the same Learned Division Bench following the ruling in Marveledge, and to a decision of a Learned Single Judge in a Petition filed by this v}

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3686

Cases Referred (3)