All real estate projects with occupancy certificates issued after 01.05.2017 are considered ongoing and shall be registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, entitling allottees to statutory rights.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

[WP(C) Nos.6169/2026, 5821/2026, 5846/2026, 6003/2026, 6069/2026, 6103/2026, 6121/2026, 6129/2026]

All these writ petitions were filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the “AWHO”) challenging the various orders passed by the adjudicating officer of K-RERA in various complaints submitted by the occupants of the apartments constructed by the petitioners. All those orders are produced as Ext.P7 in these writ petitions.

2. Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly challenges Ext.P7 orders by way of writ petition, instead of invoking the statutory remedy contemplated under Section 43 (5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act  (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that, the K-RERA does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in which these impugned orders are passed. The reason, according to the learned Senior Counsel, that makes the complaint without any jurisdiction is that, the project, which is the subject matter in these writ petitions, is not liable to be registered under the provisions of the Act, in view of the fact that, the project was not an ongoing project.

3. This contention was raised, mainly on the ground that, the occupancy certificate for the building completion was received on 21.02.2018 and Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018 came into force only on 14.06.2018 and thus, it was not possible for any real estate project to get registration before the date on which the Rules came into force. Therefore, it was pointed out that, it was not an ongoing project which requires registration as contemplated under proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.

4. However, the contention raised by the petitioners was opposed by Adv.K. Shaj, the learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents in these cases, Sri.Saji Thomas, the 2^nd respondent in W.P(C) No.5846/2026, who appeared in person, Adv.P.Anirudhan, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent in W.P(C) No.6103/2026 and Adv.Mahadev M.J., learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent in the remaining writ petitions.

5. It was pointed out by the said respondents that, the question regarding the jurisdiction was considered by the RERA and passed an interim order on 03.10.2024, rejecting the very same contentions raised by the petitioners herein. It was held that, since the occupancy certificate was obtained after the Act came into force on 01.05.2017, it is required to be registered and therefore, a direction was issued to the petitioners herein, to register the project within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said order.

6. The sequence of events after issuance of the said order indicates that, the complaints in which the order dated 03.10.2024 was passed, were happened to be rejected by the K-RERA taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P(C) No.40178/2023, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2, wherein, this Court directed the demolition of two towers in the apartment complex that form part of the project in question, by directing the District Collector to constitute a committee to do the same. The said judgment was rendered by this Court, taking note of the serious structural defects that were found in the said towers and also taking in