Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Decision of Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MPREAT) on January 8, 2026, involved multiple appeals and legal challenges related to orders passed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, particularly focusing on procedural and jurisdictional issues ["Mp Real Estate Regulatory Authrority vs Briddhi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Madhya Pradesh"].
The Tribunal allowed appeals by respondents, setting aside certain orders of the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), citing violations of procedural requirements such as the composition of the Appellate Tribunal. It was emphasized that under Section 45 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal must consist of a Chairman and two members, including a Technical Member, and orders passed without this proper constitution are liable to be invalidated ["Mp Real Estate Regulatory Authrority vs Briddhi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Madhya Pradesh"].
Several cases involved the Tribunal's scrutiny of orders related to refunds, deposit payments, and appeals against RERA decisions. The Tribunal held that certain orders, such as those dated 05/01/2023 and 13/12/2021, were not appealable under Section 44 of the Act, and dismissed appeals on procedural grounds ["Kailash Narayan Gupta vs Gwalior Development Authority - Madhya Pradesh"].
The Tribunal also addressed issues of jurisdiction, noting that some orders were passed by single members, which was found to be without proper authority, violating the statutory requirement under the Act. For example, orders passed by single members on 8/12/2020 were challenged as being ultra vires and without jurisdiction ["M/S Treasure India vs Shri Dhanraj - Madhya Pradesh"].
Several appeals were dismissed due to delay, non-compliance with deposit requirements, or procedural lapses, reaffirming the importance of timely filing and adherence to statutory procedures under RERA ["M/S Treasure India vs Shri Dhanraj - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kailash Narayan Gupta vs Gwalior Development Authority - Madhya Pradesh"].
Additionally, the Tribunal examined challenges related to the validity of orders passed in disciplinary and administrative proceedings, emphasizing that appellate authorities cannot exercise review powers beyond their jurisdiction and that review cannot substitute for an appeal ["Lal Bahadur Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2020 Supreme(Online)(MP) 650"].
In a notable case, the Tribunal quashed an order passed in an intra-court appeal, citing misuse of jurisdiction and misrepresentation of facts by the appellant, and reaffirmed that the appellate authority's powers are limited to the scope defined under the Act ["Smt Sunita Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's decision underscores strict adherence to procedural requirements mandated by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Tribunal consistently emphasized that orders passed without proper constitution of the appellate body or beyond its jurisdiction are invalid. It also highlighted that delays and procedural lapses can lead to dismissal of appeals, reinforcing the need for timely and compliant filings. The Tribunal's rulings reaffirm the importance of statutory compliance and proper constitutional setup of appellate authorities to ensure the legality and validity of orders passed under RERA.
References:
In the evolving landscape of real estate regulation in India, the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MPREAT) plays a pivotal role in resolving disputes under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). A notable case, Bhopal Development Authority vs. Roop Laxmi Singh (Appeal No. 131/2020), decided on January 8, 2026, highlights critical issues around tribunal orders, their enforceability, and procedural compliance. This blog delves into the jurisprudence, key principles, and implications for stakeholders.
Whether you're a homebuyer, developer, or authority like the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA), understanding these nuances can safeguard your interests. Note: This is general information based on available jurisprudence and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The case of Bhopal Development Authority vs. Roop Laxmi Singh (Appeal No. 131/2020) was decided by the MPREAT on January 8, 2026. While specific judgment details are limited, it ties into broader debates on development projects, possibly linked to initiatives like the Bhopal Smart City Project or ABD Area Project. These disputes often involve project execution, contractual obligations, and tribunal authority. No direct precedent is traceable, but analytical insights from MPREAT jurisprudence provide clarity. G. S. Enterprises, Indore VS Yogesh Agrawal - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 1005
The MP RERA and its appellate body, MPREAT, are established under RERA, 2016. The tribunal typically includes a Chairperson and at least two full-time Members—one judicial and one technical or administrative. This ensures balanced adjudication. G. S. Enterprises, Indore VS Yogesh Agrawal - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 1005
Proper composition is crucial, as seen in cases where the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed RERA orders due to procedural lapses in bench formation. For instance, Vide order dated 15.11.2022, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal with cost and with certain strong observations against the petitioner. S.S. Infrastructure Through Its Partner Shri Ayush Agrawal vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority Through Its Secretary - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 23461
A core question is whether MPREAT orders qualify as 'decrees' under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Jurisprudence clarifies:- Executable as Decrees: Section 57 of RERA deems them executable like decrees.- Not Formal Decrees: They lack the status under CPC. Khilla Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. VS Subhash Jain - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 695
The Allahabad High Court ruled similarly: orders under RERA are enforceable as decrees but not decrees per se, impacting appeals. Supreme Court views align, limiting judicial review scopes. Khilla Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. VS Subhash Jain - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 695
In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court distinguished RERA orders from CPC decrees, noting procedural effects on appeals and execution. This applies to MP contexts too. Khilla Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. VS Subhash Jain - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 695
Under Section 58 of RERA, appeals against MPREAT orders are maintainable. A Madhya Pradesh High Court case examined a Miscellaneous Appeal against a RERA tribunal order, concluding it was maintainable despite the non-decree nature. Khilla Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. VS Subhash Jain - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 695
Another appeal under Section 58 highlighted mandatory deposits: Mandatory statutory deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Non-compliance led to dismissal. Buland Builtech Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2020 Supreme(All) 1375
BDA projects fall under RERA scrutiny. The Roop Laxmi Singh appeal likely addresses:- Tribunal Composition: Requirement for full panels over individual members. G. S. Enterprises, Indore VS Yogesh Agrawal - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 1005- Judicial Review: Scope for procedural and substantive challenges.
Related MP cases reinforce this. For example, an appeal before MPREAT (No.150/2022) was dismissed for lapses, with the High Court noting, Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgement dated 07.06.2021, passed by Member, Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Bhopal. M/S G.S. Enterprises Represented By Partners Mr. Govind Chawala vs Yogesh Agrawal - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6049
In Uttar Pradesh parallels, appeals like U.P. Awas Vikas vs. Nishtha Bhatnagar under Section 58 addressed delay interest post-possession. U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow Thru. Its Housing Commissioner VS Nishta Bhatnagar - 2022 Supreme(All) 583
These align with BDA vs. Roop Laxmi Singh, stressing procedural adherence.
The MPREAT's handling of Bhopal Development Authority vs. Roop Laxmi Singh exemplifies RERA's balance of efficiency and fairness. Tribunal orders, while powerful, navigate nuanced CPC distinctions, composition mandates, and appeal protocols. As real estate disputes rise, staying informed on cases like this—drawing from precedents Khilla Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. VS Subhash Jain - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 695G. S. Enterprises, Indore VS Yogesh Agrawal - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 1005—empowers better decisions.
Key Takeaways:- RERA orders enforceable but not decrees per CPC.- Proper tribunal setup vital.- Section 58 appeals key remedy.
Sources: Khilla Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. VS Subhash Jain - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 695G. S. Enterprises, Indore VS Yogesh Agrawal - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 1005Shivsaksh Enterprise Partnership Firm vs Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited (Bscdcl) Bhopal M.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 335S.S. Infrastructure Through Its Partner Shri Ayush Agrawal vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority Through Its Secretary - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 23461M/S G.S. Enterprises Represented By Partners Mr. Govind Chawala vs Yogesh Agrawal - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6049U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow Thru. Its Housing Commissioner VS Nishta Bhatnagar - 2022 Supreme(All) 583Buland Builtech Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2020 Supreme(All) 1375
This analysis reflects jurisprudence up to 2026; laws evolve—seek professional advice.
#RERAIndia, #MPREAT, #RealEstateLaw
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 " ... The respondents challenged the ex-parte order dated 03.01.#....
Against this order of dismissal, petitioner preferred appeal before M.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Bhopal. ... Real Estate Authority Bhopal and order Annexure-P/2 dt. 15.05.2025 passed by M.P. Real State Appellate Tribunal may kindly be quashed. ... So far as WP No.21281/2025 is concerned, Gwalior Development Authority....
By order dated 02.12.2020 (Annexure P/9) the appellate Tribunal in Appeal Case MJC No.118 of 2020 has directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.15,975/- in compliance of the provision of Section 43(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Act"). ... Real Estate Appellate Tribunal....
It was by the end of January 2020 that the applicants got to know that the corporate debtor is under CIRP and preferred an appeal against the order of CIRP dated 19.06.2019 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi on 20.06.2020. ... , Madhya Pradesh. ... However, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal on ground of delay and no jurisdiction to extend time ....
In the last, he brought to our notice Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. 8. Rule 35 reads thus:- “35. ... Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 1, Main Road, Zone-I, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011 (MP). As directed by His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice Maninder S. ... for the medical examination of the Chairperson or Member of the Authority or Appe....
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the M.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal which was registered as Appeal No.150/2022. Vide order dated 15.11.2022, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal with cost and with certain strong observations against the petitioner. ... MARG AGRASEN CHOURAHA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI VINAY SARAF, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED B....
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgement dated 07.06.2021, passed by Member, Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Bhopal in Appeal No.A-135/2019, thereby ... No.34/2018 was preferred by the appellants before the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Bhopal (hereinafter....
The RERA has decided the complaint vide its order dated 16-4-2018, in favour of the respondent, and being aggrieved of the same, the Appeal No. 34/2018 was preferred by the appellants before the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Tribunal’), ... This civil second appeal has been filed under section 58 of the Re....
... (b) Whether the learned Real Estate Appellate was justified in law in remanding the case to the adjudicating officer constituted under S.71 of Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016. ... ... which was further amended and be read as: ... In substantial question of law - (a), in place of date of order passed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal 4.3.2021, it should be read as 8....
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MADHYA PRADESH GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. ... SINGH DEVELOPMENT AREA, GHAROLA MOHALLA, WARD NO. 16, SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH) (A) SHRI RAJKUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI DINESH KUMAR #....
3. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 58 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 2016') against the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 85 of 2020 in re: U.P. Awas Vikas Evam Parishad vs. Nishtha Bhatnagar.
The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Nos.824-825 of 2020, decided on 03.12.2020) and Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1920 of 2019, decided on 18.12.2019). 19. Learned Additional Government Counsel thus, vehemently made his submissions stating that the very legislative intention of strictly dealing with the vehicles involved in the transportation of illegal mineral, particularly, bajri/sand as well as the unlawful possession and transportation of forest produce, will be defeated if such vehicles are released, and the same sh....
26 Devi Lal Forest, Churu Release of Confiscated Vehicle Petitioner’s vehicle was stopped by the police while khejri and kekar wood was being transported illegally with valid transit permit issued by the forest department. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Nos.824-825 of 2020, decided on 03.12.2020) and Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh (Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2019) decided on 26.03.2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal N....
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that examination of independent witness or presence of independent witness during the search and seizure is not an indispensable requirement, nor the prosecution case can be thrown away only for the reason of absence of any independent witness at the time of search and seizure. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions : - 7. Gangadhal @ Gangaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2020 decided on 5.8.20.)
1. This appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.03.2020 passed by Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 509 of 2019 and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Moradabad, U.P. in Complaint Case No. 1220174612.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
