1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 672 of 2021

• Real Estate Regulatory Authority Chhattisgarh, An Authority Established Under

Section 20 Of The Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 By

State Government Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Authorized Signatory.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal A Tribunal Established Under Section 43 Of The

Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 Situated At Ghadi Chowk,

Raipur , Through Its Presiding Officer

2. Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Agrawal R/o E 31, 32,

Anandam World City, Kachna, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Smt. Sharda Devi Agrawal W/o Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal R/o E-33, Anandam

World City, Kachna, Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Shri Sumit Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramesh Agrawal R/o E-17, E-32, Anandam

World City, Kachna , Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. Shri Atul Agrawal S/o Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal R/o E-20, Anandam World

City, Kachna , Raipur Chhattisgarh

6. Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal R/o E-19, Anandam World City, Kachna , Raipur

Chhattisgarh

7. Shri Ateet Agrawal S/o Shri Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal R/o E-18, Anandam

World City, Kachna , Raipur Chhattisgarh

8. M/s Gold Bricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Having Its Registered Office At

Anandam World City, Gad Colony, Kachna Main Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh

Through Its Directors Rakesh Saraogi, Rajesh Saraogi Sivusagarnemchand

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Ms. Meha Kumar, Advocate

For Respondents No.1, 2 & 4 to 7 : Shri Shreyankar Nandy, Advocate

For Respondent No.3

: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

24/03/20

21

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure P-1)

passed by the appellate Tribunal constituted under the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2016').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellate authority in

its appellate order dated 08.12.2020 at para 33 has given certain directions

which the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RERA') is

not legally permissible to do so or is entitled to do so, therefore, the order would

be bad in law and the said part of the direction is bad in law. She would further

submit that the power under Act, 2016 is conferred under Section 31 & 71 and

reading of the same would show that it is the adjudicating authority who will

decide with respect to compensation. Consequently, the adjudicating authority

which is to be appointed under Section 71 of the Act, 2016 is the authority, who

is the petitioner herein, cannot be directed to do so as it would be completely

illegal and the said direction cannot be allowed to sustain. She further refers to

Section 35 of the Act, 2016 and would submit that Section 35 of the Act, 2016

also do not anywhere gives the power to delegate, which has been done in the

instant case, wherein the direction has been given. She would further submit

that she has not challenged the entire order only the part of the order given at

para 33 has been challenged.

3

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the arguments and

would submit that the very purpose of filing of this petition would be against the

judicial dictum as the authority which has filed the petition against the order of

the appellate authority cannot be allowed to be a party as the authority was

discharging its quasi judicial functioning. He would further submit that the

RERA i.e. the petitioner herein, cannot step into the shoes of the parties either

as complainant or respondent instead of adjudicating the same. Reference is

made to the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in the case of Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. West Coast Petroleum Agency {2012

(1) KerLJ 738} as also in the case of Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner Vs. Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal & Anr.

{(2014) 3 Cal LJ 1}.

5. I have heard