Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 4520
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J
SUMIT KUMAR DAGA – Appellant
Versus
CHHATTISGARH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY – Respondent
MA/28/2025
Mr. Amrito Das and Mr. Ankur Agrawal for Appellant; Mr. Yogesh Pachoriya for Respondents
The mere sale of land after removing a dilapidated structure does not qualify as development under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, thus not requiring registration as a promoter.
Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 3 and 59 - Appeal against RERA order - Appellant's status as 'promoter' questioned - Appellant claimed to have only removed dilapidated structure without development - RERA held appellant violated registration requirements - Tribunal upheld RERA's decision - Court found RERA's actions perverse, ruling appellant not a promoter. (Paras 3, 6, 22, 23)
(B) Definition of 'promoter' and 'real estate project' - Court clarified that mere sale of land post-removal of dilapidated structure does not constitute development under the Act. (Paras 15, 21)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, a partnership firm, was accused of violating RERA provisions by selling land after demolishing a dilapidated building without registration. RERA initiated a suo moto case against the appellant, which was upheld by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appellant's actions did not meet the criteria of a promoter under the Act, and the suo moto case was instituted without valid grounds.
Issues: Whether the appellant qualifies as a 'promoter' under the Act based on actions taken regarding the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the appellant's actions did not constitute development as defined by the Act, and thus, the registration requirement was not applicable.
Result: Appeal allowed; RERA's order quashed.
Order on Board
08/04/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth referred to as “Tribunal, Raipur”) in Appeal No.299/2024 upholding the order dated 16.10.2024 (Anneuxre A-2) passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (henceforth referred to as “RERA, Raipur”) in suo moto Case No.SM-URP-2024-02406, whereby RERA, Raipur has held that aforesaid sue moto case is maintainable before it.
3. Issue to be considered by this Court is, whether the status of appellant in respect of the disputed property/land is that of a “promoter” under Sections 3 and 59 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 2016”) or not?
4. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 24.05.2024, RERA, Raipur registered suo moto Case No.SM-URP-2024-02406 against the appellant on the ground that, he had obtained development permission for his land bearing Khasra No.2/14 & others admeasuring area 21,159 sq. ft. situated at Old Police Line, Abdul Hamid Ward No.36, Moudhapara, District Raipur (CG), without being registered as promoter/developer under the RERA, Raipur and developed the disputed property for the purpose of sale and purchase of Real Estate Project, thereby violated the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 2016, which is punishable under Section 59 of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter, show cause notice (Annexure A-4) was issued to the appellant. After receiving show cause notice, the appellant entered his appearance before RERA, Raipur and filed his reply/objection (Annexure A-6) stating inter alia that the disputed property was purchased by a Firm namely; ‘Ramdev Realties’. The appellant along with Amit Kumar Daga, Deepa Daga and Varsha Daga were partners of the aforesaid Firm. The partnership firm has purchased building situated over the disputed property along with open area. In that land, about 60 years old three- storey building was situated, some portion was open land and in some part of the building, shops were also established. Since structure of the building was in dilapidated condition and some part of the same was already collapsed, therefore, after getting permission from the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, to protect the life & property of the persons, removed the dilapidated portion of the building and cleared the collapsed material. Some shops are still being operated in the said building. It was further contended that though some part of the disputed property/land has been sold by the partnership firm, but the same has been sold without any construction or development, therefore, the partnership firm was not required to be registered under the RERA, Raipur to sell that land, as such, suo moto case registered against the appellant by RERA, Raipur is not maintainable hence, the same be dismissed.
5. RERA, Raipur, after considering the reply/objection filed by the appellant, dismissed the same vide order dated 16.10.2024 on the ground that the appellant, without getting registration of his project, has redeveloped the disputed property and has sold some portion of it, as such, he has violated the provisions of Section 3, which is punishable under Section 59 of the Act, 2016.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by RERA, Raipur, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal, Raipur bearing Appeal No.299/2024, which was dismissed by it, holding therein that the appellant has bulldozed building/Bhawan and started developing land into the project for the purpose of selling to other persons and has also sold 900 sq. ft. land to Lalchand Fulwadhya & Nanak Prakash Fulwadhya and 1200 sq. ft. land to Mohan Lal Krishnani & Vicky Krishnani vide two registered sale deeds, as such, at the time of execution of aforesaid sale deeds, the status of partnership f
