Chattisgarh High Court
M/ S. Gold Bricks Infrastructures ... vs Smt. Sharda Devi Agrawal on 6 May, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
(Order reserved on 29.03.2022)
(Order delivered on 06.05.2022)
MA No. 25 of 2021
M/s. Gold Bricks Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized
Directors Shri Rakesh Saraogi, Regd. Office Anandam World City,
GAD Colony, Kachna, Main Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492007
---- Appellant
Versus
Atit Agrawal, S/o. Satya Narayan Agrawal, E/18, Anandam World City,
Kachna, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
MA No. 19 of 2021
M/s. Gold Bricks Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized
Directors Shri Rakesh Saraogi, Regd. Office Anandam World City,
GAD Colony, Kachna, Main Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492007
---- Appellant
Versus
Satyanarayan Agrawal, S/o. Late Ramgopal Agrawal, E/31 & E/32,
Anandam World City, Kachna, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
MA No. 20 of 2021
M/s. Gold Bricks Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized
Directors Shri Rakesh Saraogi, Regd. Office Anandam World City,
GAD Colony, Kachna, Main Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492007
---- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sharda Devi Agrawal, W/o. Satya Narayan Agrawal, E/33
Anandam World City, Kachna, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
2
MA No. 22 of 2021
M/s. Gold Bricks Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized
Directors Shri Rakesh Saraogi, Regd. Office Anandam World City,
GAD Colony, Kachna, Main Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492007
---- Appellant
Versus
Atul Agrawal, S/o. Satya Narayan Agrawal, E/20 Anandam World City,
Kachna, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
MA No. 31 of 2021
Ram Kumari Kaushik, W/o. Shree Santosh Kaushik, Aged About 41
Years, R/o. Ward No.7, Chakarbhata Campus, Nagar Panchayat
Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kiran Bhajgawalli, W/o. Shree Rajesh Bhajgawali, R/o. Gehun
Badi, Shikhar Colony, Darri Para, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Dhara Infra Build Private Limited, Through Its Directors Smt. Lavjeet
Sharma And Smt. Kalpana Soni, Address - Dhara Infrabuild Private
Limited, CLC Plaza Mangla Chowk, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Appellant in M.A.Nos.25, : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate
22, 19 & 20 of 2021
For Appellant in M.A.No.31/2021 : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 in M.A. : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate
Nos.25, 19 & 20 of 2021
For Respondent No.1 in M.A. : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari & Mr. Shrijan
No.31 of 2021 Shukla, Advocates
For Respondent No.2 in M.A. : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate
No.31/2021.
Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
CAV Judgment
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
1. All these miscellaneous appeals are heard together, as have been
admitted primarily on the common questions of law.
2. The appellants herein are the Builders/ Colonizers/ Developers. The
private respondents who purchased the plots filed a complaint before
the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short "RERA"). According to
the private respondents, they purchased plots in a project known as
Anandam World City, Kachna on different dates. It was alleged that
while they wanted to construct the houses, it was objected by the
builders and a demand was made for infrastructure developments
fees. Apart from that, the development work in the Colony i.e.
Walkway, Fire-station, Open Area, Temple, Development of Pond,
Garden, Other amenities of the Retail & Business Shops, Hospital,
Amphitheater, Supermarket, Multiplex, ATM, Library, Doctor, Kids'
Play Area was not provided. The boundary wall also remained
incomplete and the roads were without street lights. Whereas in the
brochure and the advertisement, all the amenities were promised to
be provided. On such different count, the petition was filed wherein a
joint order was passed by the RERA on 10.02.2020 and all the
applications filed by the private respondents/ beneficiaries were
dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by such order, an appeal was preferred before the
Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated
08.12.2020 remanded the case with certain directions and RERA was
directed to get the area inspected by an Architect to evaluate whether
development work was carried out or not and further direction was
given that issue about payment of development/user charges in
absence of agreement non-execution of the agreement be referred to
the adjudicating authority and the grievances of the private home-
buyer were directed to be decided afresh.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, these
appeals have been filed.
5. (i) M.A. No.25/2021 was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law :
(a) "Whether the order dated 08-12-2020 passed by the
learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was without
jurisdiction since it was passed by a single member?
(b) "Whether the learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
was justified in law in remanding the case to the
adjudicating officer constituted under Section 71 of Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (for short
"RERA") to adjudicate on various complaints other than
issue of compensation in view of limited jurisdiction
conferred on the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of
the RERA Act, 2016"
(ii) M.A.No.22/2021 was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law :
(a) "Whether the order dated 08-12-2020 passed by the
learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was without
jurisdiction since it was passed by a single member?
(b) "Whether the learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
was justified in law in remanding the case to the
adjudicating officer constituted under Section 71 of Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short
"RERA") to adjudicate on various complaints other than
issue of compensation in view of limited jurisdiction
conferred on the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of
the RERA Act, 2016"
(iii) M.A.No.31/2021 was admitted on the following substantial
question of law :
"Whether the order dated 04/03/2021 passed by the
learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was without
jurisdiction since it was passed by a single member
bench?"
(iv) M.A.No.19/2021 was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law :
(a) "Whether the order dated 08-12-2020 passed by the
learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was without
jurisdiction since it was passed by a single member?
(b) "Whether the learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
was justified in law in remanding the case to the
adjudicating officer constituted under Section 71 of Real
Estate(Regulatory and Development) Act,2016 (for short
"RERA") to adjudicate on various complaints other than
issue of compensation in view of limited jurisdiction
conferred on the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of
the RERA Act, 2016"
(v) M.A.No.20/2021 was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law :
(a) "Whether the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the
learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was without
jurisdiction since it was passed by a single member?"
(b) "Whether the learned Real Estate Appellate was
justified in law in remanding the case to the adjudicating
officer constituted under Section 71 of Real Estate
Regulatory Authority Act, 2016. (for short 'RERA') to
adjudicate on various complaints other than issue of
compensation in view of limited jurisdiction confessed on
the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the RERA 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 "04-03-
2021", it should be read as "08-12-2020".
In substantial question of law-(b), after the word "Real
Estate Appellate", the word "Tribunal" shall be added.
In third line of substantial question of law-(b), in place of
"Real Estate Regulatory Authority-2016", it shall be read
as "Real Estate (Regulatory and Development) Act, 2016.
In fifth line of substantial question of law-(b), in place of
word "confessed", it shall be read as "conferred".
6. Mr. Ashish Surana & Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel for the
appellants would submit that the private respondents have filed a
complaint with the authority i.e. RERA, which is defined under section
2(i) which defines the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established
under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2016"). It is
stated whereas the "adjudicating officer" is defined under section 2(a)
who is appointed under sub-section (1) of section 71. He would
submit that the establishment of the Real Estate Appellant Tribunal is
under section 43 of the Act of 2016, which mandates that the
Government within one year from the date of coming into force of this
Act of 2016, by notification, shall established the Appellate Tribunal
and as per sub-section (3) of section 43, the Appellate Tribunal shall
consist of at least one Judicial Member and one Administrative or
Technical Member. He further submits that section 45 of the Act of
2016 further postulates the Composition of the Appellate Tribunal and
therefore section 43 & 45 of the Act of 2016 would be relevant to
answer the first question of law.
7. He would submit that initially the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was
constituted by a notification on 29.04.2017, it was non functional and
as such it was withdrawn by subsequent notification dated
23.10.2019. He would submit that on 31.10.2019, the power to
exercise the power of Appellate Tribunal was given to the single
member Tribunal of State Transport Appellant Tribunal (STAT) which
is constituted under section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
the orders herein which are under challenged have been passed by
the Single Member of STAT exercising the power of Appellate Tribunal
under RERA.
8. Referring to the case law of Man Global Limited v. Bharat Prakash
Joukani (2019 SCC Online Bombay 2466), Janta Land Promoters
Private Limited v. Union of India & Others (2020 SCC Online
Punjab & Haryana 2030) and Newtech Promoters & Developers
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others (2021 SCC Online SC 1044), the
counsel would submit that the order passed by the Single Member
Committee would be without jurisdiction, as it would be against the
spirit of section 43(3) read with section 45 of the Act of 2016. He
further submits that the order further directing the adjudicating
authority to decide the complaint would also be illegal, as adjudicating
authority appointed under section 71(1) of the Act of 2016 is only
empowered to order for compensation.
9. Per contra, Mr. R.S.Marhas, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Shailesh Tiwari
with Mr. Shrijan Shukla, learned counsels appearing for the
respondents along with learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Amrito Das would
submit that the State in the instant case has exercised the power
under the proviso clause to section 43 of the Act of 2016, as at the
first instance though the Tribunal was established but it was
withdrawn. Therefore, till further establishment of Tribunal, as
establishment was in transitory process, the appellate power was
given to the single member Tribunal of STAT. He would submit
subsequently as of now in the Tribunal, the Chairperson has been
appointed. He would further submit that therefore the law point raised
by the appellant is not in dispute but the case in hand being an
exceptional case, the power was exercised by the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal who was vested with the power to exercise power
of Appellate Tribunal. He would further submit that the order dated
08.12.2020 whereby remand was made, contains two fold direction (i)
for the Architect to see the development and compare it with promise
(ii) to deliberate the user charges to be paid in absence of any
agreement by Adjudicating Authority and after hearing the parties may
pass an order. Therefore, virtually no orders have been passed, which
is contrary to the Act of 2016.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
11. The first question of law in substance is with respect to whether the
power exercised by the single member Appellate Tribunal of STAT
would be valid under the RERA and therefore whether it was within
the jurisdiction.
12. In order to get the answer, the mandate to section 43 & 45 under
Chapter VII of the Act of 2016 would be relevant. For the sake of
brevity, section 43 & 45 are reproduced herein below :
"Section 43. Establishment of Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal- (1) The appropriate Government shall, within
a period of one year from the date of coming into force
of this Act, by notification, establish an Appellate
Tribunal to be known as the - (name of the State/Union
territory) Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
(2) The appropriate Government may, if it deems
necessary, establish one or more benches of the
Appellate Tribunal, for various jurisdictions, in the State
or Union territory, as the case may be.
(3) Every bench of the Appellate Tribunal shall consist of
at least one Judicial Member and one Administrative to
Technical Member.
(4) The appropriate Government of two or more States
or Union territories may, if it deems fit, establish one
single Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that, until the establishment of an Appellate
Tribunal under this section, the appropriate Government
shall designate, by order, any Appellate Tribunal
Functioning under any law for the time being in force, to
be the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals under the Act:
Provided further that after the Appellate Tribunal under
this section is established, all matters pending with the
Appellate Tribunal designated to hear appeals, shall
stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal so
established and shall be heard from the stage such
appeal is transferred.
(5) Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or
order made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer
under this Act may prefer an appeal before the
Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter:
Provided that where a promoter files an appeal with the
Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without
the promoter first having deposited with the Appellate
Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the penalty, or such
higher percentage as may be determined by the
Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the
allottee including interest and compensation imposed on
him, if any, or with both, as the case may be, before the
said appeal is heard.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section
"person" shall include the association of allottees or any
voluntary consumer association registered under any
law for the time being in force.
Section 45. Composition of Appellate Tribunal - The
Appellate Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson and
not less than two whole time Members of which one
shall be a Judicial member and other shall be a
Technical or Administrative Member, to be appointed by
the appropriate Government.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-
(i) "Judicial Member" means a Member of the Appellate
Tribunal appointed as such under clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 46;
(ii) "Technical or Administrative Member" means a
Member of the Appellate Tribunal appointed as such
under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 46"
13. The admitted facts are that after the Act of 2016 was enacted, the
appropriate government, i.e. State Government herein by a
notification dated 29.04.2017 established the Chhattisgarh Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal for State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur, which
was inconformity to sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act of 2016.
After establishment of the Appellate Tribunal, it remains non-
functional. Reading of section 43(1) of the Act of 2016 though
purports that word have been used that Appellate Tribunal shall be
constituted within one year of coming into force of the Act of 2016, but
in case it is not established or non-functional what would be the
consequence is not provided in the Act of 2016.
14. The cases before us, it is admitted that by a subsequent notification
dated 23.10.2019, the earlier establishment of Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal was withdrawn. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal of RERA
was not available at State of Chhattisgarh, as was required under the
principle Act of 2016 to be established within one year. In case of like
nature, when the consequences of non-compliance in statute are not
provided or if the Act is not followed, will it be mandatory or directory.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Balwant Singh v. Anand Kumar
Sharma, (2003) 3 SCC 433 has emphasized the effect of law that
when no consequence is provided, it would be directory in nature.
15. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Babu Ram
Upadhyay (AIR 1961 SC 751) has held that it is well established that
an enactment in form mandatory might in substance be directory. It
was further held that it is the duty of the Courts of Justice to try to get
at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the
whole scope of the statute to be construed. The reference is made to
Maxwell on "The interpretation of Statutes", 10th Edition, at Page 381
and the Court ruled the following:
"On the other hand, where the prescriptions of a statute relate
to the performance of a public duty and where the invalidation of acts
done in neglect of them would work serious general inconvenience or
injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the
duty without promoting the essential aims of the legislature, such
prescriptions seem to be generally understood as mere instructions
for the guidance and government of those on whom the duty is
imposed, or, in other words, as directory only.
The neglect of them may be penal, indeed, but it does not affect the
validity of the act done in disregard of them."
This passage was accepted by the judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in the case of Montreal Street Rly. Com. v. Normandin 1917
AC 170: (AIR 1917 PC l42) and by this Court in 1958 SCR 533: ((S)
AIR 1957 SC 912).
16. The Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. International Airport
Authority of India (1997) 9 SCC 132 has made a reference to the
book of mandate on the construction of statute and has fortified the
principle the question as to whether a statute is mandatory or
directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the
language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of
the legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained, not only
from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its
nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from
construing it the one way of the other. The Supreme Court in this case
further laid down that where the language of statute creates a duty,
the special remedy is required to be prescribed for non-performance
of the duty. Applying the aforesaid principle, the interpretation of sub-
section (1) of section 43 of the Act of 2016 when the Appellate
Tribunal is not established by State within one year, as required by
the Act of 2016, non compliance since would not result any
consequence, the word used in section 43(1) of the Act of 2016 would
be directory in nature.
17. Further undisputed facts are that, by subsequent order passed by the
State on 31.10.2019, the State in exercise of power under proviso to
sub-section (5) had ordered that till the Appellate Tribunal is
constituted under RERA, the power of Appellate Tribunal RERA would
be executed by Chhattisgarh State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
Therefore, STAT was bestowed with the power to exercise the
appellate function. The proviso clause 2 sub-section 4 of section 43
reads that until the establishment of Appellate Tribunal under section
43, the appropriate Government (which is a State of Chhattisgarh
here), by order shall designate any Appellate Tribunal functioning
under any law for the time being enforce, to be the Appellate Tribunal
to hear the appeal under the Act of 2016.
18. Here the STAT which was an Appellate Tribunal functioning under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and was constituted under Section 89 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was designated to exercise the power of the
Appellate Tribunal of RERA. Prima facie therefore confirmant of
power on STAT was done as per the power conferred under proviso
to Act of 2016. Section 43 of the Act of 2016 further provides that after
the Appellate Tribunal is established, the matter pending before the
designated Appellate Tribunal shall be transferred to the Appellate
Tribunal constituted under the RERA. Reading of the proviso clause
do not contemplate that Appellate Tribunal cannot be of a single
member and was constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
therefore, would have the jurisdiction. The case law relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellant are not in conflict to the legal
proposition but hear the designation of STAT, which is of a single
member was only for a transitory period while the Tribunal constituted
under the Act of 2016 is required to be done under section 43(3) of
the Act of 2016. The proviso clause is qualified with the word that the
designation to any other Appellate Tribunal can be functioning under
any law for the time being enforce can exercise the power. Therefore,
that qualified exception would bring it out the necessity of section
43(3) read with section 45 of the Act of 2016, wherein certain number
of members are required to complete the constitution of forum i.e.
Judicial & Technical/ Administrative Member.
19. In a result, the order passed by the learned single member STAT in
exercise of power of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal would be justified.
As a consequence, the question No.1 is answered in affirmative that
the order passed by the Single Member Committee of STAT was well
within jurisdiction.
20. Now referring to the question No.2, which primarily pertains to the fact
whether the Tribunal was justified in law remanding the case to the
adjudicating officer under section 71 of the Act of 2016 to adjudicate
the complaint other than the issue of compensation in view of the
limited jurisdiction conferred on the adjudicating officer under section
71 of the Act of 2016.
21. We have perused the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal. The
direction given by the Tribunal is two fold, first direction contains that
an Architect should be appointed either of RERA or with the consent
of both the litigant an inspection be carried out about the development
done by builder. The order further contains a direction that the
litigants be given the chance of hearing and produce evidence.
Thereafter the second part of direction contains that with the consent
of both the parties/ litigants, different development and infrastructure
charges which are required to be levied may be decided in absence
of agreement of same.
22. The adjudicating officer is defined under section 2(a) which refers that
"adjudicating officer" means the adjudicating officer appointed under
sub-section (1) of section 71. It is distinct from the authority under
section 21. The powers of the authorities are defined from section 30
to 38. Section 71 defines the power of adjudicating authority. Reading
of section 71(1) of the Act of 2016 would show that the power of
adjudicating officer is to adjudicate compensation. As a necessary
corollary to decide the quantum of compensation, the adjudicating
officer may hold an inquiry after giving a person concerned
reasonable opportunity of being heard to find out the degree of
development to be carried out. The said appointment of the
adjudicating officer is also in conformity to the object of the legislation
to decide the compensation.
23. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is for appointment of Architect and
make an inspection in respect of development carried out. The order
further contains to decide the quantum of infrastructure/ user charges
in absence of agreement and thereafter to decide the modus of
agreement i.e. charges to be paid in absence of any infrastructure
development agreement. We are of the opinion that both the
amalgamated direction passed by the learned Tribunal would be
against the spirit of section 71. The first part of the order whereby it
has been directed that the Architect may be appointed to evaluate the
development carried out and both the parties may be given
opportunity would fall in line with the object of section 71, which may
eventually lead to decide a quantum of compensation qua the existing
development as against the promise made to buyers at the time of
floating of scheme. The second part of the direction that a mutual
settlement may be arrived for execution of the agreement for user
charges is not contemplated under section 71(1) of the Act of 2016.
Therefore, the second part of the order to arrive at a mutual decision
for agreement and development charges cannot be done by the
adjudicating officer, as such, that part of order cannot be sustained
being beyond the powers conferred under section 71(1) of the Act of
2016. Therefore, the question of law is answered that the remand of
the case to the adjudicating officer other than to decide the question
of compensation is held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the
part of the order that the adjudicating officer may in order to ascertain
the development work carried out qua the advertisement / prospectus
may appoint an Architect to find out the work so far carried out on
spot. In such adjudication process, the parties shall also be given
opportunity of hearing by following the rules of natural justice.
Therefore, we direct that the adjudication process to grant
compensation under section 71 of the Act of 2016 to adjudicate the
compensation, if any, shall be carried out by procedure as discussed
hereinabove within further period of 5 months from the date of receipt
a copy of this order.
24. Now it has been further submitted before us that by a notification
dated 05.03.2021, Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has
been constituted. It has further been stated that during the course of
submission though the Chairperson has been appointed but other
members have not been appointed, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal
is non-functional. The State, which is a welfare State, pursuant to the
object of the Act of 2016, which is for regulation and promotion of the
real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building in
an efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of
consumers in the real state sector and to establish an adjudicating
mechanism for speedy dispute redressal is required to establish the
Appellate Tribunal. Only appointment of single member committee will
not complete the constitution of Appellate Tribunal. Under the
circumstances, since considerable time has passed after the Act of
2016 came into being, it is directed that the State shall ensure that the
Appellate Tribunal shall made functional so that the grievance of the
public at large who are affected are redressed. It is expected that the
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal shall be made functional with all
infrastructure within a short span of time to redress the grievance of
the aggrieved.
25. With such observation, all the appeals stand disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ashok
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MA No. 25 of 2021
M/s Gold Bricks Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. -Versus- Atit Agrawal
alongwith
MA No.22/2021, MA No.19/2021, MA No.20/2021 & MA No.31/2021
Head Note
(i) Under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016,
power exercised by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in absence
of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal would be within jurisdiction.
Hkw&laink vihyh; vf/kdj.k dh vuqifLFkfr esa] jkT; ifjogu vihyh;
vf/kdj.k }kjk Hkw&laink ¼fofu;eu ,oa fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 2016 ds rgr fd;k x;k
'kfDr dk iz;ksx {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxrZ ekuk tkosxkA
(ii) Under Section 71(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016, the adjudicating authority can decide the
compensation alone.
Hkw&laink ¼fofu;eu ,oa fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 2016 ds rgr U;k; fu.kkZ;d
izkf/kdkjh ek= izfrdj U;k;fuf.kZr dj ldrk gSA
(iii) For comparative assessment of promise and work done to
decide the compensation under Section 71(1) of the Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, the adjudicating authority may
call for ancillary evidence.
Hkw&laink ¼fofu;eu ,oa fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 2016 dh /kkjk 71¼1½ ds rgr izfriwfrZ
U;k;fuf.kZr djus ds fy,] U;k; fu.kkZ;d izkf/kdkjh] fn;s x;s opu rFkk rRlacaf/kr
laikfnr dk;Z ds rqyukRed ewY;kadu gsrq vkuq"kafxd lk{; dh ekax dj ldrk gSA
