IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 7743 of 2025 MP REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHRORITY Versus BRIDDHI REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - learned Counsel for petitioner.

Shri Raja Girraj Sharma- learned Counsel for respondents.

ORDER The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2016"), challenging the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Appeal No. 60 of 2022 by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Tribunal"), whereby the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by respondents No.1 and 2, by setting aside the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the appellant/the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short "RERA").

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant is a statutory authority constituted under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act of 2016. The order challenged in this appeal was passed on 25.06.2025, but it was received in the office of the appellant on 05.08.2025. Consequently, the instant appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The respondents are promoters as defined under Section 2(zk) of the Act of 2016. They filed an application for the registration of a real estate project named "The Address" under Section 3 of the Act on 12.06.2018. On the basis of the submission of the application by the respondents, ID No. 273253112520 was generated, and the scrutiny process commenced. Thereafter, via notice dated 06.07.2018, the appellant instructed the promoter to cure the defects relating to required documents, i.e., EWS, colonization registration, sanction of MOA building, calculation sheet, sanctioned plan of TNCP, scheme of payment, and other documents. On 06.12.2018, a reminder letter bearing No. 392 was sent due to the lack of response. However, no compliance was made by the respondents. It was found by the appellant that despite the fact that the project, namely "The Address," was not registered and the defects had not been cured, the respondents had begun selling plots. Therefore, the appellant took suo motu cognizance and registered a case vide MRC/369/2019 against the respondents for violation of Section 3 of the Act of 2016. Thereafter, on 14.11.2019, a notice vide No. 13456 was issued under Section 59 of the Act of 2016, but the respondents did not appear before the appellant, as a result of which, an ex-parte order was passed on 03.01.2020, directing the confiscation of fees of Rs. 8,54,080/- and the freezing of the respondents'

account, among other penalties.

3. The respondents challenged the ex-parte order dated 03.01.2020 before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. A-25/2020. The Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on 09.04.2021, setting aside the confiscation of registration fees and the fine, but confirming the restriction on the sale of plots. However, the names of the respondents were directed to be kept in the list of defaulters. The matter was again relegated to the appellant by the Appellate Tribunal with a direction that the appellant would again start the process of registration of the project.

4. Thereafter, another communication was sent to the respondents on

03.11.2021 to cure the defects, but no steps were taken by the respondents. Since nothing was done by the promoter/respondents, on 28.02.2022, a detailed letter was sent to the respondents in which deficiencies found by the appellant were pointed out to the respondents. Thereafter, again on 16.03.2022, another communication was sent by the appellant in which deficiencies still persisting were informed to the respondents. However, when the deficiencies were still not cured, by exercising power under Section 5 of the Act of 2016, the appellant