Chattisgarh High Court
Surinder Singh Dhillon vs Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited on 5 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:10734
NAFR
RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2025.03.06
18:37:39 +0530
WPC No. 1246 of 2025
1 - Daljeet Singh Dhillon S/o Late Mohan Singh Dhillon Aged About 36 Years
R/o Near Dr. Rawlani Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh
Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter
Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001
Madhya Pradesh
2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House
No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
Respondent(s)
1 - Beena Gupta W/o Daulat Ram Gupta Aged About 73 Years R/o 19/784,
Shanti Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter
Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001
Madhya Pradesh
2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House
No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
Respondent(s)
1 - Surinder Singh Dhillon S/o Late Ashi Singh Dhillon Aged About 74 Years
R/o Near Dr. Rawlani Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter
Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001
Madhya Pradesh
2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House
No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
Respondent(s)
1 - Sandeep Behl S/o Late Prem Sagar Behl Aged About 55 Years R/o A-13,
V.I.P. Estate, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Raipur Treasure Island Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter
Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island 11, Tukoganj Main Road Indore - 452001
Madhya Pradesh
2 - Vraj Commercial Private Limited Through Its Director/ Promoter House
No. 63, Jalvihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
05/03/2025
1. Since, the common facts and grounds are involved in all these writ
petitions, they are being considered and disposed of by this common
order.
2. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the order
dated 23/12/2024 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RERA'), whereby the application
filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment of the Bank as necessary
party, has been rejected. The petitioners are further questioning the order
dated 31/01/2025 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners questioning the
order dated 23/12/2024 has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application for
impleadment of Bank as necessary party has been rejected by the RERA
as well as by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioners
have failed to show averment in the application that they want to
implead bank as necessary party because the bank has taken recourse of
the provisions contained under Section 13 (4) of the SARFESI Act,
2002 against the respondents. He would further submits that though the
petitioners have not mentioned in the application about initiation of
proceeding under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 against the
respondents/Builders by the Bank, but in a simple terms, they have
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application for impleadment of bank
because the bank was involved in the financial transactions of the
property in question and as such their right and interest may be directly
affect. He would further submit that though the Appellate Tribunal has
observed that the petitioners can implead the respondent/Bank as
necessary party, but he has to show or make out a case that the Banks
have taken recourse to provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002
against any of the respondents/Builders.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the order
of the RERA as well as order of the Appellate Authority and the
application submitted by the petitioners to implead the Banks as
necessary party.
5. On perusal of the application (Annexure-P/3), it is quite vivid that the in
the application submitted by the petitioners before the RERA, they have
submitted that the proposed respondent/Bank was involved in the
financial transactions of the concerned property in question, however, it
has not clearly stated about the proceeding initiated under Section 13 (4)
of the Act, 2002 against the Builder/respondents. Subsequently, the
learned Tribunal as well as the RERA while dealing with the
application, rejected the same only on the ground that the petitioners
have not specifically pleaded that the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the
Act, 2002 has been initiated by the Bank against respondents and the
property involved in the subject are directly involved under the
proceeding of the Act, 2002.
6. If, as per the pleadings and contentions of the petitioners, it is true that
the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 has been initiated
against the respondents/builders by the proposed respondent/bank, then
the impleadment application filed by the petitioners to implead the bank
as necessary party, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper as also
in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of
Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority
and Others1.
7. Hence, the petitioners are permitted to approach before the RERA by
filing a fresh application and by making a specific pleading that the
proposed Respondent/Bank has initiated a proceeding under Section 13
(4) of the Act against the respondent/builder. Needless to say that in the
event of filing such application by the petitioners within three days, the
RERA shall consider the same and shall pass necessary orders within a
further period of 5 days keeping in mind the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the matter of Union of India (Supra).
8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent
indicated above.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Rahul
1 2022 SCC Online SC 1885
