[Cites 32, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M. P. Real Estate Regalaratory ... vs M/S Suvidhi Realities Pvt. Ltd ... on 6 April, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
-1- MSA-76-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MSA No. 76 of 2025
(MADHYA PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY Vs SIDDHARTHA
DOMICILE CREATION PVT. LTD )
MSA/87/2025, MSA/90/2025, MSA/9/2026
Dated : 06-04-2026
Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocate (appearing through V.C.)
assisted by Shri Aryan Gupta - Advocate for the appellant / M.P. Real
Estate Regulatory Authority in all the Misc. Second Appeals.
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Namit Jain
- Advocate for the respondents in MSA Nos.76/2025.
Shri Kanishka Gupta - Advocate for the respondent in MSA
No.09/2026.
Shri Pankaj Chandra Bagadiya - Advocate for the respondent in
MSA No.87/2025.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Govt. Advocate for the State.
01. The present miscellaneous second appeals are filed under Section
58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred as "Act, 2016") being aggrieved by the orders
passed by the M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Tribunal, Bhopal, whereas
the appeals filed by the respondents have been allowed and the matters
have been remanded back to the 'Authority' for adjudication afresh.
02. The respondents raised preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the second appeals at the instance of M.P. Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred as "Authority"). It is
contended by the respondents that the appellant, being an adjudicatory
authority cannot maintain the appeals under Section 58 of Act, 2016.
03. Per contra, Shri Ajay Gupta, learned senior counsel for the
-2- MSA-76-2025
appellant / Authority argued that the appeals are maintainable
considering various powers and the duties conferred on the Authority
under the Act, 2016. Thus, the question which arises for consideration is
"Whether an adjudicatory authority like RERA can challenge an order of
a Higher Forum, setting aside its own decision and can maintain the
appeal under Section 58 of the Act, 2016 ?"
04. Learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that under the
scheme of the Act, 2016, authority discharges three types of functions
i.e. i. Administrative. ii. Regulatory. & iii. Adjudicatory. He submits that
so far as the exercise of power as adjudicatory authority is concerned,
Authority may not file an appeal, but in respect of the powers which are
regulatory in nature and if the order is passed against authority, it can
maintain an appeal under Section 58 of Act, 2016 as the authority would
be "person aggrieved". He further argued that word "person aggrieved"
is not defined under the Act, 2016, but as under Section 2(zg), word
"person" is defined, which is inclusive definition and the same has
already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. He submits that the
authority would be covered under the said definition. He also referred
the definition of "company" under Section 2(o) of Act, 2016, which is
reproduced as under:
(o) "company" means a company incorporated and registered under
the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) and includes,-
(i) a corporation established by or under any Central Act or State Act;
(ii) a development authority or any public authority established by the
Government in this behalf under any law for the time being in force;
05. He further submits that the Authority is a public authority
established under the law and the definition of word "person" is
inclusive definition, which is wide enough to include the authority
(RERA). In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the
appellant placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the
-3- MSA-76-2025
Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts : Gujarat Real Estate
Regulatory Authority V/s Satyam Infracon [Civil Appeal No.1 of
2020], Satyam Infracon V/s Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority
[Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).5136/2021], M/s. Newtech
Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of UP & Ors. Etc. [Civil
Appeal No(s).3711-3715 of 2021], Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt.
Ltd. and Anr. V/s Union of India and Others [2017 SCC OnLine Bom
9302], Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India V/s Delhi
International Airport Limited and Others [(2024) 15 Supreme Court
Cases 345], Bar Council of Maharashtra V/s M.V. Dabholkar and
Others [(1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 702], Real Estate Regulatory
Authority and Ors. V/s D.B. Corp. Limited and Ors.
[MANU/NL/0961/2023], Shri Ji Builders and Developers Partnership
Firm V/s Madhya Pradesh Real Estate [Writ Petition No.19852 of
2023 decided on 23.09.2024 by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur],
Delhi Development Authority V/s Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs.
and others [Civil Appeal Nos.10326-10327 of 2010], Thalappalam Ser.
Coop. Bank Ltd. and others v/s State of Kerala and others [Civil
Appeal No.9017 of 2013] and Central Public Information Officer,
Supreme Court of India V/s Subhash Chandra Agrawal [Civil Appeal
No.10044 of 2010].
06. Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel and Shri Pankaj
Chandra Bagadiya, learned counsel for the respondents argued that
appeal is not maintainable at the instance of Authority. They argued that
the Authority is not covered within the definition of "person" or "person
aggrieved". They further argued that the definition of "person" cannot be
interpreted wide enough to include even an 'authority', who had passed
an order and whose order has been set aside by the appellate authority.
The definition of "person" is inclusive as well as restrictive. His
-4- MSA-76-2025
submission is that there cannot be any distinction of regulatory and
adjudicatory powers. There are certain functions under the Act that are
statutory, regulatory and adjudicatory function, but as per the doctrine of
judicial discipline, an authority who discharges such powers cannot
maintain an appeal when its order has been set aside by Appellate
Forum. He further submitted that there are certain enactments where an
authority has been conferred power to defend his order, but not in the
Act, 2016. He distinguished the judgments referred by counsel for the
petitioner on the ground that the facts and provisions of the enactments
in the aforesaid cases were different and as per the law of precedent, a
judgment is not binding but a ratio decidendi is a law.
07. In addition, they submitted that in Section 88 of the Act, word
"any person aggrieved" is used and the expression "any person
aggrieved" has to be interpreted strictly as per the provisions of the Act.
He submitted that in Section 31, expression "any aggrieved person" is
used and in Section 44 and 43, words "any person aggrieved" are used
and, therefore, under Section 58, the interpretation to expression "any
person aggrieved" has to be given to the persons who are referred in the
other provisions of the Act. The same cannot be widely interpreted to
include even an authority to defend its decision after being set aside by
the higher forum that would lead to absurdity and would be contrary to
the judicial discipline.
08. In support of their submission, learned counsel for the
respondents have placed reliance on the following judgments : Regional
Transport Authority V/s Sri Ram [Air 1974 All 140], Mohtesham
Mohd. Ismail V/s Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr.
[(2007) 8 SCC 254], Administrator, Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd.
V/s Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. [W.A. No.57 of
2010 (passed by Kerala High Court)], Regional Provident Fund
-5- MSA-76-2025
Commissioner V/s Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal &
Ors. [Letters Patent Appeal No.1009 of 2022 (passed by the High
Court of Gujarat)], Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical
Education v/s Karthik Dev R & Ors. [W.A. No.1550 of 2025 (passed by
Kerala High Court)] and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai V/s Roshan Kumar,
Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. [(1976) 1 SCC 671].
09. They also referred the dictionary meaning of word "aggrieved
party" from Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, which defines
word "aggrieved party" as under:
Aggrieved party. (17c) A party entitled to a remedy; esp., a party
whose personal, pecuniary or property rights have been adversely
affected by another person's actions or by a court's decree or
judgment. - Also termed party aggrieved; person aggrieved.
10. They vehemently argued that the functions and duties assigned to
Authority are different from duties and functions assigned to ERA in the
case of Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (supra). The
judicial discipline requires that "an adjudicatory authority" cannot
challenge the order passed by the higher authority under any
circumstance, which would undermine the principles of judicial
discipline. In order to consider the aforesaid question, it is apposite to
refer the provisions of Section 58 of Act, 2016, under which the present
appeals are filed, which is reproduced as under:
"58. Appeal to High Court.-(1) Any person aggrieved by any
decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the
High Court, within a period of sixty days from the date of
communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, to
him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Provided that the High Court may
entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if
it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause
from preferring the appeal in time.
Explanation.-The expression "High Court" means the High Court of
a State or Union territory where the real estate project is situated.
(2) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order made by the
Appellate Tribunal with the consent of the parties."
-6- MSA-76-2025
11. Section 58 of Act, 2016 uses the expression "any person
aggrieved". The word "person aggrieved" is not defined under the Act,
2016, however, Section 2(zg) of the Act defines "person" as under:
"(zg) "Person" includes,-
(i) an individual;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family:
(iii) a company;
(iv) a firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) or the
Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), as the case Limited may
be;
(v) a competent authority;
(vi) an association of persons or a body of individuals whether
incorporated or not;
(vii) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-
operative societies;
(viii) any such other entity as the appropriate Government may, by
notification, specify in this behalf;"
12. Section 43 similarly uses the expression "any person aggrieved".
Before adverting to the core issue whether the Authority being an
institutionary body exercising quasi-judicial as well as regulatory
powers under the Act, 2016 can be treated as a "person aggrieved" so as
to maintain an appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It is
apposite to refer the object and scheme of the Act, 2016. The Act, 2016
is an enactment by the Parliament 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.
13. The authority is defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, 2016,
-7- MSA-76-2025
which means the Authority established under sub-Section (1) of Section
20. Chapter I of the Act, 2016 deals with the short title, object,
commencement and extent in Section 1 & 2. Chapter II deals with the
registration of real estate project and registration of real estate agents
from Section 3 to 10. Chapter III deals with the functions and duties of
promoter from Section 11 to 18. Chapter IV deals with the rights and
duties of allottees in Section 19. Chapter V deals with the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority from Section 20 to 40. Chapter VI deals with the
Central Advisory Council in Section 41 & 42. Chapter VII deals with
the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal from Section 43 to 58. Chapter VIII
deals with the offences, penalties and adjudication from Section 59 to
72. Chapter IX deals with the finance, accounts, audits and reports from
Section 73 to 78. Chapter X deals with the miscellaneous Section 79 to
14. The various provisions of the Act, 2016, which is reproduced as
under:
Section Particulars Function
3 Prior registration of real estate project with Authority Regulatory
4 Application for registration of real estate projects Regulatory
5 Grant of registration Regulatory
6 Extension of registration Regulatory
7 Revocation of registration Regulatory
8 Obligations of Authority upon lapse or on revocation of Regulatory
registration
9 Registration of real estate agents Regulatory
10 Functions of real estate agents Regulatory
11 Functions and duties of promoter Regulatory
12 Obligations regarding veracity of the advertisement or Regulatory &
prospectus Adjudicatory
13 No deposit or advance to be taken without first entering Regulatory &
into agreement for sale Adjudicatory
14 Adherence to sanctioned plans and project specifications Regulatory &
by the promoter Adjudicatory
15 Obligation of Promoter in case of Transfer of Real Estate Regulatory
-8- MSA-76-2025
Project to a third Party
16 Insurance of real estate project Regulatory
17 Transfer of title Regulatory
18 Return of amount and compensation Adjudicatory
19 Rights and duties of allottees Regulatory
20 Establishment and incorporation of Real Estate Administrative
Regulatory Authority
21 Composition of Authority Administrative
22 Qualification of Chairperson and Members Administrative
23 Term of Office of Chairperson and Members Administrative
24 Salary, allowances of Chairperson and Members Administrative
25 Administrative powers of Chairperson Administrative
26 Removal of Chairperson or Member Administrative
27 Restrictions on Chairperson or Members on employment Administrative
after cessation of office
28 Officers and employees of Authority Administrative
29 Meeting of Authority Regulatory &
Administrative
30 Vacancies, etc., not to invalidate proceeding of Authority Administrative
31 Filing of complaints with Authority or Adjudicating Adjudicatory
Officer
32 Functions of Authority for promotion of real esate sector Regulatory
33 Advocacy and awareness measures Regulatory
34 Functions of Authority Regulatory
35 Power to call for information Regulatory &
Adjudicatory
36 Power to issue interim orders Adjudicatory
37 Power to issue directions Regulatory
38 Powers of Authority Regulatory
39 Rectification of Order Adjudicatory
40 Recovery of interest or penalty or compensation as Adjudicatory
arrears of land revenue
58 Appeal to High Court Regulatory
59 Penalty for non-registration and contravention of Regulatory
provisions of section 3
60 Penalty for contravention of section 4 Regulatory
61 Penalty for contravention of other provisions of the Act Regulatory
62 Penalty for non-registration by real estate agent Regulatory
63 Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Authority Regulatory &
Adjudicatory
65 Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Authority be Regulatory &
real estate agent Adjudicatory
-9- MSA-76-2025
67 Offences by allottees Adjudicatory
69 Offences by Companies Adjudicatory
71 Power of Adjudicate Adjudicatory
72 Factors to be taken into account by Adjudicating Officer Adjudicatory
77 Budget Accounts and Audit Administrative
78 Annual Report Administrative
79 Bar of jurisdiction Adjudicatory
80 Cognizance of offences Regulatory
81 Delegation Administrative
85 Power to make regulations Administrative
& Regulatory
86 Laying of rules Administrative
15. In the case of Smt. Bai Gurjar and Others V/s The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others (Writ Appeal No.1416 of 2025, decided
on 24.07.2025), a question arose for consideration that whether writ
appeal is maintainable at the instance of an intervener or "person
aggrieved" under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The Court
considering the issue regarding maintainability of an appeal by
intervener or "person aggrieved" referred various judgments of the High
Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Re Securities
Insurance Co. [(1894) 2 Ch. 410], the Courts of Chancery considered
the issue regarding maintainability of an appeal by a person who is not a
party to the lis held that it is well settled that while a person who was
party could appear without any leave but a person who without being a
party was either have laid down the rule that a person who is not a party
to a decree or order may with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal
from such decree or order if he is either bound by the order or is
aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it.
16. In the case of A. Subash Babu V/s State of A.P., reported in
(2011) 7 SCC 616, the Apex Court held that the expression 'aggrieved
person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined
-10- MSA-76-2025
to the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope
and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content
and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific
circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainant's
interest and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injuries suffered by
him. The appellants have thus, failed to demonstrate that they are
prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree in question or any of
their legal rights stand jeopardised, so as to bring them within the ambit
of the expression "person aggrieved" entitling them to maintain appeal
against the decree.
17. The expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who
suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved
must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been
adversely affected or jeopardized (see: Shanti Kumar R. Canji V/s
Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 and State of
Rajasthan V/s Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592).
18. Referring to the aforesaid judgments, the Court held that
intervener falls within the category of "person aggrieved" and since
there rights are prejudicially affected by the impugned order, they can
maintain an appeal by filing an application for leave to appeal.
19. The issue regarding an authority being impleaded as a party or not
and whether an authority like Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of
India (AERA) established under Airports Economic Regulatory
Authority of India Act, 2008 can file an appeal was considered in the
case of Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (supra). The
Court considered the regulatory and adjudicatory functions and held that
a quasi-judicial authority must not be impleaded as a party in an appeal
against its orders, must be interpreted in view of the doctrinal expansion
of principle of fairness, however, held as under:
-11- MSA-76-2025
(i) An authority (either a judicial or quasi-judicial authority) must not
be impleaded in an appeal against its order if the order was issued
solely in exercise of its "adjudicatory function"
(ii) An authority must be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal
against its order if it was issued in exercise of its regulatory role,
since the authority would have a vital interest in ensuring the
protection of public interest
(iii) An authority may be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal
against its order where its presence is necessary for the effective
adjudication of the appeal in view of its domain expertise - Civil
Procedure Code ,1908 - Or. 1 R. 10 authority - Impleadment of
statutory authority. (Paras 32 to 40.3)
20. In the present case, admittedly, the Authority was impleaded as a
respondent before the appellate authority and once the Authority was
impleaded party in the appeal by the respondent themselves, then the
Authority becomes an "aggrieved party" as well.
21. In the light of the aforesaid judgments and the provisions of the
Act, 2016 as reproduced in Para 14 hereinabove, it is crystal clear that
the Act, 2016 had conferred three types of functions to the authority i.e.
administrative, regulatory and adjudicatory. So far as the powers
exercised in adjudicatory capacity is concerned, we do not have
hesitation to say that the authority cannot maintain an appeal to defend
its decision. However, the powers conferred in discharge of regulatory is
concerned, the authority can maintain an appeal because that is not
adjudicatory exercise of powers. The same does not decide the dispute
between the parties. Thus, considering the scheme of the Act, 2016 and
the distinct powers which are to be exercised by the Authority, we
answer the question that : "A quasi-judicial authority like Authority,
when acting as an adjudicator, is not an 'aggrieved party', therefore,
lacks locus standi to challenge the appellate order setting aside its
decision except where it acts in a distinct statutory or regulatory
capacity."
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and our answer to the
-12- MSA-76-2025
question, we held that all the appeals filed by the M.P. Real Estate
Regulatory Authority i.e. MSA Nos.76/2025, 87/2025, 90/2025 &
09/2026 are maintainable.
23. List the matters for hearing on admission on 21.04.2026.
24. Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the record of all the
connected Miscellaneous Second Appeals.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
