IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 Anil Kumar Yadav and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 4.

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate and Mr. Prince Pushpinder Rana, Advocate for respondent No.6.

****

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

1. During the pendency of the instant writ petition before this Court, vide order dated 01.06.2022, the hereinafter extracted observations were made by this Court:

“It is to be observed by this Court that though this petition is only one seeking a direction to the Jalandhar Improvement Trust specifically, however, such like petitions are coming up on a daily basis in huge numbers before this Court, where this question would arise; and consequently, we consider it appropriate to take up this petition, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to get the response of all authorities concerned, in both the States, of Punjab and Haryana, as also the Union Territory, Chandigarh, with regard to the above.”

2. The said observations devolve upon, whether the instantly invoked writ remedy, is the befitting remedy for redressing the grievance of the present allottees, or whether the allottees are to be led to recourse the remedy, as contemplated in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)

Act, 2016, (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘the Act of 2016’).

3. Mr. Ankur Mittal, the learned Additional Advocate General, for the State of Haryana; Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Punjab, and Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate, for U.T Chandigarh, have been heard at length on the supra aspect. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also been heard at length.

4. This Court while deciding a writ petition bearing No.CWP- 24591-2024 titled as “M/s Ramprastha Developers Private Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, whereins, almost a similar issue arose for consideration, thus had ultimately concluded, that viz-a-viz, an aggrieved home buyer or an allottee, irrespective of the fact that the project, which is promoted by the Real Estate Agent or by the Promoter concerned, remains unregistered in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 2016, yet the remedy to the allottee/home buyer is the one, which is embodied in the Act of 2016.

5. For making a proper understanding of the reasons, which became advanced by this Court while rendering a decision on the supra titled case, but does require, qua the relevant facts as enclosed therein, becoming in extenso, thus becoming extracted hereinafter, so also the reasons, which became exposited by this Court, in the verdict supra, also require becoming extracted, and they are so done:

“1. The instant writ petition has been directed against the passing of the impugned order (Annexure P-1). Annexure P-1 is a decision recorded on 26.07.2024, thus by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram. The decision supra was made on various complaints which became instituted at the instance of Yuvraj Arora and Vivek Arora, rather against the present petitioners. All the complaints were decided through a common judgment(s) as becomes embodied in (Annexure P-1).

OBJECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE PRESENT PETITIONERS HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE REM