Kerala High Court
Gopakumar B Nair vs Ramachandran Nair on 30 January, 2025
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
1
2025:KER:7394
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 10TH MAGHA, 1946
MSA NO. 8 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2025 IN REFA NO.154 OF 2024 OF KERALA
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
09.12.2024 IN I A NO. 208 IN CCP NO.31 OF 2024 OF KERALA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN REFA/RESPONDENT IN THE I.A IN THE CCP/PETITIONER
IN THE CCP:
GOPAKUMAR B NAIR
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O THE LATE BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, LAND DEVELOPER AND BUILDER,
SOLE PROPRIETOR, GBN SPACES, 5A SKYLINE PLAZA APARTMENTS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695010
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
NEETHU.K.SHAJI
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
DAINY DAVIS
MAHESH KUMAR K.
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2
2025:KER:7394
RESPONDENTS/ADJUDICATING OFFICER/RESPONDENTS IN THE REFA/PETITIONERS IN
THE I.A IN THE CCP/RESPONDENTS IN THE CCP:
1 K.V.SUGUNAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.VASU, 'SREE LAKSHMI' , KAIRALI NAGAR, 62, KURAVANKONAM,
KOWDIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2 MINI SUGUNAN
W/O. K.V.SUGUNAN 'SREE LAKSHMI' , KAIRALI NAGAR, 62,
KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695003
3 THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.M.NAZAR-SC
THIS MISC. SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2025,
ALONG WITH MSA.9/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
3
2025:KER:7394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 10TH MAGHA, 1946
MSA NO. 9 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2025 IN REFA NO.155 OF 2024 OF KERALA
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
09.12.2024 IN IA 209/2024 IN CCP NO.32 OF 2024 OF KERALA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN REFA/RESPONDENT IN THE I.A IN THE CCP/PETITIONER
IN THE CCP:
GOPAKUMAR B NAIR
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O THE LATE BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, LAND DEVELOPER AND BUILDER,
SOLE PROPRIETOR, GBN SPACES, 5A SKYLINE PLAZA APARTMENTS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695010
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
NEETHU.K.SHAJI
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
DAINY DAVIS
MAHESH KUMAR K.
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
4
2025:KER:7394
RESPONDENTS/ADJUDICATING OFFICER/RESPONDENTS IN THE REFA/PETITIONERS IN
THE I.A IN THE CCP/RESPONDENTS IN THE CCP:
1 DR. S. KRISHNA KUMAR
AGED 83 YEARS
RESIDING AT MERA 62, KRISHNA SREELAKAM, CHALAKUZHI, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
2 PROF. S. AMBIKA DEVI
W/O DR. S. KRISHNAKUMAR, MERA 62, KRISHNA SREELAKAM,
CHALAKUZHI, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695011
3 ADJUDICATING OFFICER
KERALA RELA RSTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.M.NAZAR-SC
THIS MISC. SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2025,
ALONG WITH MSA.8/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
5
2025:KER:7394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 10TH MAGHA, 1946
MSA NO. 10 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2025 IN REFA NO.156 OF 2024 OF KERALA
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
09.12.2024 IN IA NO.210/2024 IN CCP NO.33 OF 2024 OF KERALA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN REFA/RESPONDENT IN THE I.A IN THE CCP/PETITIONER
IN THE CCP:
GOPAKUMAR B NAIR
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O THE LATE BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, LAND DEVELOPER AND BUILDER,
SOLE PROPRIETOR, GBN SPACES, 5A SKYLINE PLAZA APARTMENTS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695010
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
NEETHU.K.SHAJI
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
DAINY DAVIS
MAHESH KUMAR K.
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
6
2025:KER:7394
RESPONDENTS/ADJUDICATING OFFICER/RESPONDENTS IN THE REFA/PETITIONERS IN
THE I.A IN THE CCP/RESPONDENTS IN THE CCP:
1 AJITH KUMAR HARIDAS
S/O LATE N.HARIDAS, PRESENTLY AT 14816, KEEN ELAND CIRCLE,
NORTH POTOMAC, MARYLAND-20878, USA, HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS
AT TC 28/2347,PADMALAYAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER DR.THAMPI PRABHAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, KARTHIKA,
CHARLES LANE, BURMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
2 DR. JAYA VIJAYAN
W/O AJITHKUMAR HARIDAS,PRESENTLY AT 14816, KEEN ELAND
CIRCLE, NORTH POTOMAC, MARYLAND-20878, USA, HAVING PERMANENT
ADDRESS AT TC 28/2347,PADMALAYAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER DR.THAMPI PRABHAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, KARTHIKA,
CHARLES LANE, BURMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
3 ADJUDICATING OFFICER
KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.M.NAZAR-SC
THIS MISC. SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2025,
ALONG WITH MSA.8/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
7
2025:KER:7394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 10TH MAGHA, 1946
MSA NO. 11 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2025 IN REFA NO.157 OF 2024 OF KERALA
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
09.12.2024 IN IA NO.211 OF 2024 IN CCP NO.34 OF 2024 OF KERALA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN REFA/RESPONDENT IN THE I.A IN THE CCP/PETITIONER
IN THE CCP:
GOPAKUMAR B NAIR
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O THE LATE BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, LAND DEVELOPER AND BUILDER,
SOLE PROPRIETOR, GBN SPACES, 5A SKYLINE PLAZA APARTMENTS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695010
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
NEETHU.K.SHAJI
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
DAINY DAVIS
MAHESH KUMAR K.
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
8
2025:KER:7394
RESPONDENTS/ADJUDICATING OFFICER/RESPONDENTS IN THE REFA/PETITIONERS IN
THE I.A IN THE CCP/RESPONDENTS IN THE CCP:
1 RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS
ANJANA HOUSE, RAMAPURAM, KEERIKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690508,
NOW RESIDING AT KEDARAM, KOONAYIL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, PIN -
691301
2 ADJUDICATING OFFICER
KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.M.NAZAR-SC
THIS MISC. SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2025,
ALONG WITH MSA.8/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
9
2025:KER:7394
CR
JUDGMENT
[MSA Nos.8/2025, 9/2025, 10/2025, 11/2025]
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2025
1. These four Miscellaneous Second Appeals are filed by the
same Appellant who is the Promoter of the Project, under
Section 58 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RERA')
read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The appellant was the complainant in the Complaint before the
Adjudicating Officer claiming compensation from the Allottees of
the Project. The Allottees filed Applications challenging the
maintainability of the Complaints, and the Adjudicating Officer
considered all the Applications together and passed a Common
order allowing the Applications, holding that the Complaints filed
by the Promoter for compensation under Sections 19(6) & 19(7)
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
of the RERA from the Allottees are not maintainable. The
complainants filed Appeals before the Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal, and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeals by a
common order confirming the common order of the Adjudicating
Officer.
3. The issue to be considered in these MSAs is whether the
Promoter is entitled to file a Complaint before the Adjudicating
Officer claiming compensation from the Allottee.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.C.S.Manu and
the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Real Estate
Regulatory Authority(K-RERA), Sri. C.M. Nasar.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
Promoter has the right to claim compensation from the Allottees
under Sections 19(6) & 19(7) of the RERA. Section 19(6)
mandates an obligation to the Allottees to make necessary
agreed payments within the agreed time, and hence the
corresponding right in favour of the Promoter to claim
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
compensation from the Allottee in case of breach of such
obligation is implicit in the said provision. If such obligation is
violated and some damage, loss, or injury is caused to the
Promoter, the Promoter is definitely entitled to claim
compensation under Section 19(6) by filing a Complaint under
Section 31. The learned counsel further contended that any
aggrieved person can file a complaint before the Adjudicating
Officer against Allottees under Section 31 of the RERA. 'Any
aggrieved person' referred to in Section 31 would also include
the Promoter, as complaints against the Allottees are provided
therein. The learned counsel further referred to Section 72, in
which various factors which are to be taken into consideration
for adjudging the compensation or interest are stated and, all of
which specifically refer to 'the default.' The default may happen
either from the Promoter or from the Allottee. It would indicate
that in case of default on the part of the Allottee, the Promoter
is entitled to claim compensation from the Allottee by filing a
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
complaint before the Adjudicating Officer under Section 31. The
learned counsel further contended that in view of the bar of the
jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 79, if the Promoter is
not allowed to file a complaint claiming compensation before the
Adjudicating Officer, the Promoter will be remedy-less when he
is legally entitled to get compensation from the Allottee. The
RERA is enacted for the purpose of protecting both the interests
of the Allottees as well as the promoter. The learned counsel
concluded the arguments by praying to admit the MSAs as it
involved Substantial Questions of Law.
6. The learned Standing Counsel contented that though the
aggrieved person referred in Section 31 includes the Promoter,
there is no provision in the RERA enabling the Promoter to claim
compensation from the Allottee in any case.
7. In view of the contentions addressed before me, the following
questions emerge for consideration.
. Whether any of the provisions in the RERA gives substantive right to
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
the Promoter to claim compensation from the Allottee?
. Whether Section 31 of the RERA enable the Promoter to file a
complaint against the Allottee ?.
. Whether Section 79 bars the suit at the instance of the Promoter to
claim compensation from the Allottee under the general law.?
QUESTION NO.1
8. In order to file a Complaint before the Adjudicating Officer
claiming compensation from the Allottee, the Promoter shall
have a substantive right to claim compensation under the
provisions of the RERA. Section 19(6) creates a statutory
obligation that every Allottee who has entered into an
agreement for sale to take an apartment, plot, or building, as the
case may be, under Section 13, shall be responsible to make
necessary payments in the manner and within the time as
specified in the said agreement for sale and shall pay at the
proper time and place, the share of the registration charges,
municipal taxes, water and electricity charges, maintenance
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
charges, ground rent, and other charges, if any. Section 19(7)
mandates that the Allottee shall be liable to pay interest, at such
rate as may be prescribed, for any delay in payment towards
any amount or charges to be paid under sub-section (6).
9. On a conjoint reading of Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 19,
it could be seen that the said provisions provide that in case of
breach of the obligations provided under Sub-Section (6), the
Allottee is liable to pay only interest for the delay in making the
payments and not liable to pay compensation. In such case,
even though the right of the Promoter to get interest from the
Allottee is not specifically provided in the said Provision, such
right of the Promoter is necessarily implicit in the said provision.
Neither the liability to pay compensation nor the right to get
compensation is provided in those provisions. But that does not
mean that the Promoter is not entitled to get compensation for
the delay under the general law of Damages in case he suffers
any damage, loss, injury, etc., on account of the delay in making
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
payments within the agreed time by the Allottee. But such right
to claim for compensation does not come within the scope of the
RERA.
10. The Preamble of the RERA is extracted below.
"An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for
regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale
of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, or sale of real
estate project, in an efficient and transparent manner and to protect
the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish
an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to
establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions,
directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the
adjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto."
11. When the RERA is enacted to promote the real estate
sector and to ensure the sale of plots, apartments, or buildings,
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
as the case may be, or the sale of real estate projects, in an
efficient and transparent manner and for speedy dispute
redressal it is definitely beneficial to the Promoters also. But that
does not enable the Court to provide a right in favour of the
Promoter under the RERA, which is absent in its provisions.
12. Section 71 deals with the power of the Adjudicating Officer
to adjudicate the compensation. It provides that the
Adjudicating Officer is appointed to adjudicate the
compensation under S.12,14, 18, and S.19. These provisions
do not in any way provide any liability to the Allottee to pay
compensation or any right to the promoter to claim
compensation. So the right of the Promoter to claim
compensation from the Allottee is outside the scope of the
RERA. Hence, I am of the view that none of the provisions of
the RERA provides any substantive right to the Promoter to
claim compensation from the Allottee.
QUESTION NO.2
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
13. It is useful to extract Section 31 of the RERA:
"Filing of complaints with the Authority or the adjudicating
officer.--
(1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or
the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations
made thereunder against any promoter, allottee, or real estate agent,
as the case may be.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this subsection, the "person" shall
include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer
association registered under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The form, manner, and fees for filing a complaint under sub-
section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
14. It is clear from Section 31 of the RERA that 'any person
aggrieved' may file a complaint against any Promoter, Allottee,
or Real Estate Agent. The subject matter of the complaint is
limited to any violation or contravention of the provisions of the
RERA or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. RERA or
the Rules and Regulations made thereunder do not provide any
right in favour of the Promoter to get compensation. Complaint
claiming compensation alone is maintainable before the
Adjudicating officer. It is useful to extract Paragraph 86 of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters
and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P. and Others 2021
(13) SCALE 466 delineating the jurisdiction of the Authority and
Adjudicating Officer under the RERA:
"From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been
made and taking note of the power of adjudication delineated with
the regulatory authority and adjudicating officer, what finally culls out
is that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like 'refund',
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
'interest', 'penalty' and 'compensation', a conjoint reading of S.18 and
S.19 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount,
and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest
for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it
is the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and
determine the outcome of a complaint. At the same time, when it
comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation
and interest thereon under S.12, S.14, S.18 and S.19, the
adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping
in view the collective reading of S.71 read with S.72 of the Act. If the
adjudication under S.12, S.14, S.18 and S.19 other than
compensation as envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating officer
as prayed that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and
scope of the powers and functions of the adjudicating officer under
S.71 and that would be against the mandate of the Act 2016."
15. Hence, the Promoter cannot approach the Adjudicating
Officer for relief with respect to any violation or contravention of
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
the provisions of the RERA or the Rules and Regulations made
thereunder. If the Allottee delays the agreed payments and if it
gives a cause of action for the Promoter to claim interest, the
Promoter can definitely file a complaint before the Authority
claiming interest; it is for the Authority to decide whether the
Promoter is entitled to get interest for the delay on the part of
the Allottee.
16. Hence, I hold that 'any aggrieved person' occurring in
Section 31 includes Promoter also. But as the RERA or the
Rules and Regulations made thereunder do not provide any
right to claim compensation in favour of the Promoter, the
Promoter cannot file a Complaint before the Adjudicating
Officer.
QUESTION NO.3
17. The contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellant that the Promoter will be without any remedy if the
matter of compensation is misconceived. I have already found
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
that if the Promoter has a cause of action to get compensation
from the Allottee, it is outside the scope of the RERA. Section
79 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or
proceedings in respect of any matter which the Authority or the
Adjudicating Officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by
or under this Act to determine. As the claim for compensation at
the instance of the Promoter against the Allottee is not a matter
which the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer or the Appellate
Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine, the
Promoter has every right to get his grievance with respect to
claim for compensation redressed through other modes
including through Civil Court. Hence, I hold that the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court is not barred under Section 79 with respect to
the claim for compensation at the instance of the Promoter
against the Allottee.
18. In view of my answers to the aforesaid questions of law, I
do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the common
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
order of the Adjudicating Officer, which is confirmed by the
Appellate Tribunal. Though the aforesaid questions of law are
involved in the matter, they are not substantial enough to admit
the MSAs.
19. When the questions of law involved in the Second Appeal
could be answered with reference to the provisions of the
Statute and settled precedents and the answers do not require
reversal or modification of the impugned judgments/orders, the
Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is not liable to be admitted.
20. Accordingly, these Miscellaneous Second Appeals are
dismissed.
Sd/-
M A ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Ans/Jma/
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-1-2025 IN
REFA NO. 154 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF THE KERALA
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ERNAKULAM
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-12-2024 IN I.A NO.
THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER, KERALA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-1-2025 IN REFA
NO. 155 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF THE KERALA REAL
ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-12-2024 IN I.A NO.
THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER, KERALA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-1-2025 IN REFA
NO. 156 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF THE KERALA REAL
ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-12-2024 IN I.A
NO. 210 OF 2024 IN CCP NO. 33 OF 2024 ON THE
FILES OF THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER, KERALA REAL
ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
MSA Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2025
2025:KER:7394
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A-1 FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2025
IN REFA NO. 157 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF
THE KERALA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2024
IN I.A NO.211 OF 2024 IN CCP NO.34 OF
2024 ON THE FILES OF THE ADJUDICATING
OFFICER, KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
