IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 10^th OF JANUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 26515 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SKYE EARTH DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI NEERAJ SACHDEV S/O SHRI ASHOK SACHDEV A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 REGD OFFICE LG 4 RATNAMANI COMPLEX 7/1 NEW PALASIYA R/O 1301 SKYE LUXURIA NIPANIA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AMIT AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SAVIL PARASHAR- ADVOCATE)

AND M.P. REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY SECRETARY REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY BHAWAN ARERA HILLS MAIN ROAD NO. 1 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS – ADVOCATE)

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ

1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 03.10.2023, passed by the M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal whereby the petitioner‟s application for registration of project has been rejected on certain grounds including that the petitioner has not registered the decrees dated 23.11.1994, which is in violation of Section 4(2)(l)(m) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 (in short „the Act of 2016‟).

3] Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to both the decrees dated 23.11.1994, which have been passed in favour of the owners of the land, namely, Hanif and Anwar respectively. Shri Agrawal has submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid decrees, which have already attained the finality, the owners of the land have entered into a development agreement with the petitioner-company vide development agreement dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P/11). It is further submitted that the aforesaid agreement is also registered with stamp duty duly paid. Senior counsel has submitted that as per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, a decree in itself is not compulsorily registrable, except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceedings. It is submitted that the decrees were not passed in a compromise and also does not involve any other immovable property other than the subject matter of the suit. Thus, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ submitted that the petitioner was not required to get the aforesaid decrees registered, even as per Section 17(1)(e), the agreement between the parties, which can be termed to be a non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning the decree, is already registered for which a stamp duty of Rs.38,15,900/- and registration fees of Rs.12,21,088/- have already been paid. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order, so far as it relates to the condition imposed by the respondent (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) RERA to get the decrees registered, be set aside.

4] Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. Angrez Kaur and another reported as (2020) 10 SCC 250 and in the case of Khushi Ram and others Vs.

Nawal Singh and others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 128.

5] Counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. In support of his submission, counsel for the respondent has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major & Ors. reported as 1995 SCC (5) 709. Relevant paras 16, 17 and 18 of the same read as under:-.

“16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception engrafted is meant to cov