Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Target Housing Through Partner ... vs Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory ... on 9 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 17770 of 2025
M/S TARGET HOUSING THROUGH PARTNER NILESH
MALPANI
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
(RERA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Pradhumna Malpani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aryan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 25.09.2025)
(Pronounced on 09.10.2025)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ for declaring that
the application submitted by it for registration of its project "Tirumala
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
Gold" be deemed as registered and for directing respondents to issue
the requisite registration number, Login ID and password in respect of
the said project.
2. As per the petitioner, on 14.02.2025 it made an application before
the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the respondent,
in accordance with the provisions of Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 ("RERA Act") for registration of its project
"Tirumala Gold" along with the requisite fees. The application was
complete in all respects and included the necessary documents as
mandated. On 18.02.2025 the respondent demanded additional
documents and details from the petitioner in response to which the
petitioner submitted the required documents and details on 20.02.2025.
Subsequent to petitioner's compliance with the queries the respondent
did not raise any further query. It however did not issue the registration
number for the project. On 07.05.2025 respondent raised the same
query from the petitioner that had already been addressed and resolved
by the petitioner earlier. This query was raised after a period of 75 days
from the date the initial application was filed. Under the provisions of
the RERA Act registration of project ought to have been deemed on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
20.03.2025 but respondent has continued with its inaction and failure to
issue the registration number despite full compliance hence this petition
has been preferred by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under
Section 5(2) of the RERA Act the application made by the petitioner on
14.03.2025 was deemed registered on 20.03.2025 after excluding the 4
days taken for answering the query raised. Reliance on proviso to Rule
6 of Madhya Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017 ("Rules, 2017") to suspend the statutory period is contrary to the
parent Act. Subordinate legislation cannot override Section 5(2) which
grants right of deemed registration. Query could have been raised only
within 30 days from date of application yet fresh queries were raised on
07.05.2025 and 21.05.2025 which were deliberate falsehood. Petitioner
had already furnished complete documents and details including Bank
details. Once there was deemed registration accrued on 20.03.2025,
respondent could not have rejected the application of petitioner. Under
Section 7 of the RERA Act only revocation proceedings were
permissible. Denial of registration despite compliance is arbitrary,
discriminatory and infringes Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
of India. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Allahabad
High Court in Larson and Toubro Limited V/s. State of U.P. and
Others, Writ-C No.16616/2024 decided on 01.10.2014 reported in
2024: AHC: 160155-DB, U.P. RERA V/s. L & T, Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.25053/2024 decided on 01.10.2024 by the Apex Court,
State of M.P. and Others V/s. Dhmmanlal Sharma and Others, Writ
Appeal No.660/2019 decided by the Gwalior bench on 07.05.2019
and S.S. Infrastructure V/s. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, W.P.
No.7128/2023 decided on 13.07.2023.
4. Reply has been filed by the respondent and learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that upon filing of application by the
petitioner on 14.02.2025 communication was made to it on 18.02.2025
indicating the deficiencies in the application thus the time taken for the
inquiry cannot be included in the time limit for deemed registration.
The project of the petitioner hence cannot be declared as having been
deemed registered. Pursuant to the query raised petitioner furnished
certain documents which were duly scrutinized by the respondent. They
did not fully make good the discrepancies found in the application of
the petitioner which remained non-complied to the mandatory
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
requirements. Consequently, the respondent raised further queries by
letters dated 07.05.2025 and 21.05.2025. Due opportunity to clear the
defects and to appear for hearing was provided to the petitioner. Neither
were the defects removed nor valid explanation for the same provided
by the petitioner during hearing. As a result, the application of the
petitioner was rejected by order dated 13.06.2025 finding it to be not
confirming to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Since the application
has itself been rejected no declaration as regards deemed registration
can be made. The petition hence deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has
been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.6745-6749/2021 M/s. New Tech Promoters and Developers
Private Limited V/s. State of U.P. and Others and connected
appeals decided on 11.11.2021 and Civil Appeal No.3826/2020
Mansi Brar Farnandis V/s. Shubha Sharma and another and
connected appeals decided on 12.09.2025.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
6. The relief which has been claimed by the petitioner in this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
petition is for declaring deemed registration of its application for
registration. Though the said application has been rejected by the
respondent by order dated 13.06.2025 which has been brought on
record by the respondent along with its reply, the same has not been
challenged by the petitioner despite the same having been passed
subsequent to filing of the petition. The only question for consideration
is hence as to whether the application submitted by the petitioner for
registration of its project can be declared as having been deemed
registered.
7. The relevant provisions of the RERA Act and the Rules in this
regard may be examined. Section 5 of the RERA Act is as under :-
"Section 5. Grant of registration.
(1) On receipt of the application under sub-section
(1) of section 4, the Authority shall within a period of
thirty days.
(a) grant registration subject to the provisions of this
Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder,
and provide a registration number, including a Login
Id and password to the applicant for accessing the
website of the Authority and to create his web page
and to fill therein the details of the proposed project;
or
(b) reject the application for reasons to be recorded in
writing, if such application does not conform to the
provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
thereunder:
Provided that no application shall be rejected unless
the applicant has been given an opportunity of being
heard in the matter.
(2) If the Authority fails to grant the registration or
reject the application, as the case may be, as provided
under sub-section (1), the project shall be deemed to
have been registered, and the Authority shall within a
period of seven days of the expiry of the said period of
thirty days specified under sub-section (1), provide a
registration number and a Login Id and password to
the promoter for accessing the website of the
Authority and to create his web page and to fill therein
the details of the proposed project."
8. Rule 6 (1) of the Rules, 2017 is as under :-
"6. Grant or rejection of registration of the project.
--[(1) On receipt of the application for registration of
a project, under section 4 of the Act, read with rule 3,
the Authority may review the documents submitted
and enquire, inter-alia, into the following matters and
such other matters, as it may consider necessary prior
to grant of registration within the time prescribed
under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act,
namely:-
(a) the nature of title of the promoter to the land which
is proposed to be developed;
(b) plan regarding the development works to be
executed in the project:
Provided that the time taken for such inquiries,
including site inspections, if found necessary shall not
be included in the time limit for deemed registration as
provided under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act:
Provided further that the Authority may grant an
opportunity to the applicant to rectify the defects in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
application within such period, as may be specified by
it, and the time limit for disposal of the application by
the Authority shall be calculated from the date the
application has been rectified in all respects.]
9. Section 5(2) of the RERA Act provides for deemed registration of
the application after expiry of a period of 30 days from the date of filing
of the same if it remains without adjudication whereas the provisos to
Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2017 provide for exclusion of the period during
which any inquiry in respect of the application is pending and the
application is made free from defects by the applicant. It hence cannot
be said that Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2017 is in any manner in conflict
with or in derogation to Section 5(2) of the RERA Act. In any case the
validity of Rule 6(1) is not under challenge in this petition hence is not
required to be dealt with.
10. Though reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Larson and
Toubro Limited (supra) but from a perusal of the said judgment it is
observed that therein only Section 5(2) of the RERA Act was
considered but any rule akin to Rule 6 (1) of the Rules, 2017 was not
considered. The judgment also does not show as to whether there are
any rules in the State of Uttar Pradesh as have been framed in the State
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
of Madhya Pradesh wherein there is a specific Rule 6(1) under Rules,
2017 in respect of exclusion of time taken for inquiries and rectification
of defects. Further more in appeal having been preferred against the
said judgment, the Apex Court has specifically observed by order dated
13.08.2025 that interpretation of Section 5(2) of the RERA Act made by
the High Court is a matter on which it does not express any opinion and
it is left open in an appropriate case to be considered afresh. Reliance
on the said judgment hence does not benefit the petitioner in any
manner since the said judgment is distinguishable on facts.
11. As per the provisos to Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2017 the time taken
for inquiries, including site inspection, if found necessary, and
rectification of defects in application shall not be included in the time
limit for acquiring the status of deemed registration as provided under
Sub Section (2) of Section 5 of the RERA Act. Upon filing of the
application by the petitioner on 14.02.2025 a query was raised on
18.02.2025 by the respondent which was replied to by the petitioner on
20.02.2025. Though thereafter no further query was raised by the
respondent from the petitioner but another such query was raised on
07.05.2025 meaning thereby that the response submitted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
petitioner on 20.02.2025 was not found satisfactory. This query was
raised even prior to filing of this petition on 15-05-2025. Another query
was raised on 21.05.2025. Thus, evidently inquiry on the application of
the petitioner was pending hence the time limit of 30 days as provided
under Sub Section (2) of Section 5 of the RERA Act for deemed
registration stood arrested.
12. It is not a case where after filing of the application by the
petitioner no query was raised by the respondent and the period of 30
days elapsed without any action on the same and till filing of the
petition. Had that been the case, the contention of the petitioner that its
project shall be deemed to have been registered would have been
acceptable. However, query was raised by the respondent which though
was responded to by the petitioner but was not found satisfactory
leading to further queries being raised. There was hence an inquiry
pending on petitioner's application and the same was not free from all
defects hence the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
after submission of the documents by the petitioner on 20.02.2025 the
inquiry came to an end and the period of 30 days as contemplated under
Sub Section (2) of Section 5 of the RERA Act commenced, cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29236
accepted.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case there has not been any
deemed registration of the project of the petitioner. The application
preferred by it has already been rejected by the respondent by order
dated 13.06.2025 which may be challenged by the petitioner in
accordance with law. However, the reliefs as prayed for by the
petitioner in this petition cannot be granted. The petition is
consequently found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
