The court modifies RERA's orders to allow registration of flats while balancing interests, leaving merits to the authority.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

4 17-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-

“A) Quashing the order dated

14.10.2025 passed by Mr. Ved Prakash, Special Presiding Officer, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bihar in Execution Case No. 400 of 2024 whereby he has been pleased to reject the oral request of the Respondent/ Petition for recall of the order dated 26.08.2025.

B) Quashing the original order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Mr. Ved Prakash, Special Presiding Officer, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bihar in Execution Case No. 400 of 2024. C) Direct the executing court to not proceed further in the execution case till REAT (Real Estate Appellate Authority) decides the appeal bearing REAT Case (Toke No.) 67 of 2024 in which the order under execution has been put to challenge.

D) During pendency of the present case, the impugned orders (annexure P/1 & P/2) may kindly be stayed. E) For any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a developer and has entered into a development agreement with the original landlords including the respondent No. 06 herein.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the RERA based on the complaint made by the respondent No. 6 has passed the order dated 06.08.2024 in the Case No. RERA/CC/729/2021 which has been challenged before the Real Estate Appellate Authority vide REAT Case (Token No. 67 of 2024). That during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-RERA has passed the impugned orders dated 14.10.2025 & 26.08.2025 (Annexure-P/1 & P/2). Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 6 even going by his own case is entitled to approximately 5000 sq. ft. That even if the authority decides the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for carpet area or the building area, then also the respondent No. 6 would be entitled at a maximum area of approximately 5000 sq. ft. only and not more than that. Learned counsel submits that in case the authority comes to the conclusion that the respondent No. 6 is entitled to the constructed built up area as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement then the respondent No. 6 in his individual capacity would be entitled to approximately 5948 sq. ft only. Learned counsel submits that the RERA without taking the same into consideration has passed the interim orders granting blanket stay of registrations in respect of all the flats constructed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has constructed more than 1000 flats and in case the petitioner is not allowed to register the flats in favour of the prospective buyers, the petitioner would be put to great and irreparable hardship and it would not only involve financial loss to the petitioner but also put the prospective buyers to a great distress. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to safeguard the interest of the petitioner and set apart approximately area of 5948 sq. ft. of built up area i.e., the Flats Nos. 708, 101, 704 & 706, the details of the said Flats are mentioned as below;

Total Area of 5948 sq. ft.

5. Learned counsel prays that the impugned orders passed by the RERA authority may be modified accordingly and the petitioner permitted to register the flats in favor of the prospective buyers except the above flats.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 has vehemently opposed