THE RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, JAIPUR Suo Moto Versus Khedapati Balaji Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent File No. F. 3(833)RJ/RERA/P/2018 Present Shri Shailendra Agarwal, Hon’ble Member Adv Garvit Agarwal, on behalf of the Authority Advocate Mitesh Rathore, Adv Shruti Rai and Adv Samkit Jain, on behalf of the respondent promoter Date of Order: 12.10.2022 ORDER In the instant case, the real estate project registered with this Authority bearing Registration No.RAJ/P/P/2018/745 had an estimated completion date 31.05.2019 as declared by the respondent promoter himself at the time of registration. The estimated completion date having elapsed and the respondent promoter not having informed this Authority about the completion of the project or applying for extension of the project, a notice was issued to the respondent promoter in exercise of the powers Page No.| of 3 F.3(833)2018conferred on the Authority under section 8, 35, 37, 38 and section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) to show cause why a penalty upto five percent of the estimated cost of the project be not imposed upon the respondent promoter under section 61 read with section 11 of the Act for his failure to complete the project and obtain the completion certificate within the validity of registration or why he EGU eo not be ousted from the said project. H Advocate Mitesh Rathore, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the original date of completion was 31.05.2019 and the completion certificate from the empanelled architect dated 14.08.2018 has been submitted by the respondent meaning thereby that the project was completed before the estimated completion date. Since this was a plotted project, the counsel of the Authority sought submission of the release letter of 12.5 percent from the local body of Mojmabbad, Jaipur where the project is located. In this regard, the respondent had to say that the project was located in Tehsil Mojmabbad which is a rural area and no Municipality or Urban Local Body has any jurisdiction in this area. As an evidence, he submitted the conversion order issued by Page No.Quof 3 F.3(833)2018the SDO, Dudu whereby the land in question has been converted under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2017. Since the provision of keeping 12.5% of the release letter as a security for completion of the project is only applicable to the Urban Local Bodies, no such security was kept, therefore, it was not possible to submit the release letter. We examined the record. We do find that the land in question "has been converted under the aforesaid Rules which are applicable for rural areas only by the competent authority which in this case was the SDO, Dudu. We also are convinced with the argument of the respondent that 12.5% plots as security, are not kept in rural areas and, therefore, we consider the completion certificate issued by the empanelled architect sufficient to prove the completion of the project before the estimated completion date. Accordingly, in the light of above discussions and observations, the proceedings are dropped and the notice issued by this Authority is discharged. Page No.3 of 3 F.3(833)2018