Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5819
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, Pushpendra Yadav, JJ
Kailash Narayan Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Gwalior Development Authority – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20897 of 2025 | Writ Petition No. 21281 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.K. Gupta, Y.P.S. Rathore
For the Respondents: Manish Saxena
Court ruled GDA must refund the petitioner’s payment with interest due to unlawful delay in possession under RERA, emphasizing protection of home buyer rights.
Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 18 and 44 - Writ petitions concerning refund and compensation for delay in possession of property purchased under RERA - The petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amount deposited with the GDA along with interest - Courts to protect home buyer interests against arbitrary delays by developers. (Paras 1, 13, 16)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized adherence to timely compliance with tribunal orders to avoid undue hardship on home buyers. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, a senior citizen, paid Rs.22,79,643 for a shop in a complex but faced unfulfilled promises regarding possession, leading to legal action through RERA and subsequent appeals due to unappealable orders dismissing refunds and compensation claims.
Findings of Court:
The GDA must refund the paid amount with interest within two months, or face additional penalties for delayed payment, structure reinforces the obligation on developers to perform as per statutory timelines.
Issues: The court addressed if the petitioner's long wait for possession violated consumer rights and how the tribunal's previous decisions guided the current action.
Ratio Decidendi: Given the lengthy delay and statutory rights, the GDA's leadership was ruled arbitrary, affirming the tribunal's earlier refund order as a lawful resolution—the state must protect the rights of the home buyers against delays.
Result: Writ petition allowed with directions for immediate action on GDA's part.
ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. Regard being had to similitude of dispute, both the petitions (WP No.20897/2025 & WP No.21281/2025) are being heard analogously and decided by this common judgment. For factual clarity, facts of WP No.20897/2025 are taken into consideration.
Signature Not Verified
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"Hence, it is humbly prayed that writ petition may kindly be allowed writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other writ order or direction may kindly be issued against the respondent.
Order Annexure-P/1 dt. 05.01.2023 passed by the Secretary of the M.P. Real Estate Authority Bhopal and order Annexure-P/2 dt. 15.05.2025 passed by M.P. Real State Appellate Tribunal may kindly be quashed.
Respondent be directed to refund the amount which was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner by the appellate tribunal by its order dt. 13.12.2021 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Additionally, the Respondent be directed to pay compensation as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.
Any other relief, as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted doing justice in favor of petitioner."
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a senior citizen and designated Senior Advocate practicing regularly in High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Respondent/Gwalior Development Authority (GDA) floated a scheme known as 'Madhav Plaza Shopping Complex' situate at Jinsi Nala No.2 Lashkar Gwalior by which sale of offices/shops were proposed. The project was registered by Real Estate Regulatory Authority Signature Not Verified (RERA) vide its registration No.P-Gwalior-17-1332.
4. Petitioner booked one shop bearing No.G-114 admeasuring 19.90 square meter at ground floor in the complex for the purpose of office of petitioner and for which petitioner paid Rs.22,79,643/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Seventh Nine Thousand Six Forty Three Only) to the respondent/GDA between 17/04/2015 to 04/09/2015.
5. After sometime, petitioner requested the respondent for delivery of possession of the shop and execution of registered sale deed, but to no avail. Subsequently, petitioner came to know that Madhav Plaza Shopping Complex is being constructed without valid permissions. Therefore, petitioner requested the respondent/GDA for refund of amount deposited by him along with interest. Since no heed was paid by respondent, therefore, petitioner initiated proceedings before Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MP RERA) by lodging a complaint for refund of amount along with interest and compensation. However, petitioner's complaint was dismissed vide order dated 07/08/2019. Against this order of dismissal, petitioner preferred appeal before M.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Bhopal. After hearing the rival submissions, Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that as per different pronouncements of Supreme Court of India, three-year period is reasonable to wait for petitioner for delivery or possession of shop. Therefore, it was held that petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.22,79,643/- as deposited by petitioner and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
6. Petitioner in his complaint prayed for interest on the amount Signature Not Verified deposited by him in the year 2015 with respondent and the compensation for the loss which has been suffered by him. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Officer to determine the rate of interest and compensation payable to petitioner. For that limited purpose, the case was remanded to the Adjudicating Officer.
7. Petitioner appeared before the Adjudicating Officer and the Adjudicating Officer fixed the case for determination of compensation and rate of interest from time to time. But, on 05/01/2023, counsel who appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of petitioner wrongly stated that the Tribunal has granted the relief, which was apparently wron
