Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rana And Joshi Buildtech Pvt Ltd vs The Collector on 8 January, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
W.A.No. 905 of 2024
RANA AND JOSHI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
W.A.No.901 of 2024
RANA AND JOSHI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
W.A.No.902 of 2024
RANA AND JOSHI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
W.A.No.903 of 2024
RANA AND JOSHI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari- Senior Advocate with Shri Ravi Chaudhary -
Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Smriti Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None for respondent No.3(proforma respondent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 03.12.2024
Pronounced on : 08.01.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Regard being had to the similarity by the controversy, all appeals
were heard analogously and decided by common order.
2. For convenience facts as narrated in W.A.No.905 of 2024 are taken
into consideration.
3. Heard on I.A.No.3250/2024, an application under proviso of Section
2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act (in W.A.No.905/2024)
and I.A.No.3084/2024, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act (in
W.A.No.903/2024).
4. As per office note, W.A.No.905 of 2024 and W.A.No.903 of 2024 are
within time, therefore, no order is required to be passed on aforesaid I.As.
5. Also heard on I.A.No.3265/2024 (in W.A.No.902/2024) and
I.A.No.3253/2024 (in W.A.No.901/2024), applications under proviso of
Section 2 of the M.P. Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 r/w section 5 of Limitation Act.
6. After due consideration, I.A.No.3265/2024 and I.A.No.3253/2024
are allowed. Delay of 164 days in filing W.A.No.902 of 2024 and
W.A.No.901 of 2024 are hereby condoned. All matters are heard on merits.
7. The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has
been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated
03.04.2024 passed in RP No.293/2024 by the learned Single Judge.
8. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No.2(petitioner
in writ petition) filed a writ petition No.17818/2023 seeking execution of
revenue recovery certificate (RRC) proceeding for realization of amount in
pursuance to order passed by Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA),
Bhopal vide order dated 01.07.2022.
9. It appears that said writ petition was preferred for expediting the
execution proceedings. Learned Writ Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 in
W.P.No.17818/2023 directed the respondent No.1/Collector, District
Vidisha to execute the pending RRC within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of the order in accordance with law.
10. It appears that present appellant (as respondent No.2 in writ petition)
preferred review petition No.292/2024 taking exception to such direction.
However, vide order dated 03.04.2024 said review petition stood
dismissed. An order dated 03.08.2023 stood affirmed. Therefore, execution
of RRC had to be carried out. Being aggrieved by that this writ appeal has
been preferred by appellant (respondent No.2 in writ proceedings).
11. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for
appellant that earlier against order dated 01.07.2022 passed by RERA
Appellate Tribunal appeal was preferred purportedly under Section 43 of
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short 'Act, 2016')
and deposited total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest.
Therefore, it is the submission of learned counsel appearing for appellant
that the amount has already been deposited with the RERA Appellate
Tribunal and it is for the allottee/petitioner to move appropriate application
before the Appellate Tribunal. Order for execution of RRC be modified
accordingly.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the prayer on the
ground that petitioner/allottee is running from pillar to post and post to
pillar for last many years. Their respective amounts (of all petitioners)
despite being order to be refunded have not been paid yet by appellant.
Instead of making payment appellant is trying to protract the case.
Petitioner/allottee cannot reap the benefits of order dated 01.07.2022 yet.
13. Heard.
14. In the present case, appellant as builder/developer has intended to
challenge the order of leaned Writ Court where he suffered twice one is in
original proceedings and another in review proceedings. Therefore,
sufficient time has already been consumed. The purpose of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is clear and categorical which is
as follows:-
"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."
15. Considering the aims and object of the Act, 2016, it is luculently
clear that it is a beneficial legislation for bringing efficiency and
transparency in real estate sector and to establish and adjudicating
mechanism for speedy dispute redressal. Therefore, it appears that
appellant has adopted protracting tactics rather than doing things
effectively on ground. It is the duty of appellant to return back the money
and further it is the duty of Collector and other authorities to look into it
and comply the order dated 03.08.2023 passed in Writ Petition and order
dated 03.04.2024 passed in Review Petition.
16. As submitted and admitted by the appellant total amount has already
been deposited by the appellant before RERA Appellate Tribunal.
Therefore, RERA Appellate Tribunal ought to decide the appeal as
stipulated in Section 44 of Act, 2016.
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner/allottee cannot be
made to suffer and cannot be made victim of the procedures to the extent
where adjudicatory mechanism would frustrate the cause of allottees.
Therefore, Collector, Vidisha is directed to execute the pending RRC
immediately without fail within one month from today, i.e., on or before
10.02.2025. Else RERA Appellate Tribunal shall immediately release the
total amount which is being deposited by the appellant in respect of all
petitioners/allottee as per the entitlement of all petitioners/allottee.
18. Appeal stands dismissed with aforesaid observations.
(Anand Pathak) (Rajendra Kumar Vani)
Judge Judge
Monika
MONIKA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=1cbbae26c87c00013f5046748e6252
7c7ddf7dd9146694af9eed96f47a359612,
SHARMA
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=467E3B08B967B1DB89B83343
F4529ACCC8C299CC7F76C573D43B2B90742
22453, cn=MONIKA SHARMA
Date: 2025.01.09 11:32:18 +05'30'
