Rajasthan High Court
Union Bank Of India vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory ... on 14 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13688/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Mamta Kotia W/o Shri Rajesh Kotia, Kotia Niwas, 3Rd
Floor, Bajaj Nagar, Vileparle (West) Mumbai-40056
3. Rajesh Durgalal Kotia S/o Shri Durgalal Kotia, Kotia Niwas,
3Rd Floor, Bajaj Nagar, Vileparle (West) Mumbai-40056
4. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director
Mr. Satya Narayan Gupta, 707 Paris Point, Banipark,
Jaipur-302016
5. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
6. Kusum Lata Sharma D/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
7. Vijay Laxmi Sharma D/o Late D.c. Sharma, O-13, Ashok
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
8. Prabodh Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijendra Sharma, O-13,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13758/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(2 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Chairman.
2. Mukesh Agarwal, 812/815, 8Th Floor, Vijay City Point,
Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001.
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through M.d., 707 Paris Point,
Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma D/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
----Respondents
3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13768/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Mukesh Agarwal, 812/815, 8Th Floor, Vijay City Point,
Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001.
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director
Satyanarayan Gupta, 707 Paris Point, Banipark, Jaipur-
302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma D/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
6. Vijay Laxmi Sharma D/o Late D.c. Sharma, O-13, Ashok
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
7. Prabodh Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijendra Sharma, O-13,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
4. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13774/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(3 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Mrs. Renu Jain W/o Mr. Paras Jain, Through Authorized
Representative, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jain, 350-351, Street
No.12 West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Shakarpur,
East Delhi 110092
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through Authorized Signatory
S.n. Gupta, 707 Paris Point, Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Satya Narayan Gupta, 707 Paris Point, Banipark, Jaipur-
302016
5. Shashi Kant Sharma, S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
6. Kusum Lata Sharma, S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
7. Vijay Laxmi Sharma D/o Late D.c. Sharma, O-13, Ashok
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
8. Prabodh Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijendra Sharma, O-13,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
5. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13775/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Mukesh Agarwal, 812/815, 8Th Floor, Vijay City Point,
Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001.
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Through M.d., 707 Paris Point,
Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(4 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
----Respondents
6. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13801/2021
Union Bank of India Jaipur, through its Authorised Officer Pramod
Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok Marg, C
Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Praveen Vyas, Director M/s Pawans Specialities Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 4 Th- 13 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director
Mr. Satya Narayan Gupta, 707 Paris Point, Banipark,
Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma W/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
6. Vijay Laxmi Sharma D/o Late D.c. Sharma, O-13, Ashok
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
7. Prabodh Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijendra Sharma, O-13,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
7. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13817/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(5 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
2. Sarita Agarwal, Plot No. D-176-C, Bhragu Marg, Kanti
Chand Road, Bani Park, Jaipur
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through M.d., 707 Paris Point,
Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma D/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
6. Vijay Laxmi Sharma D/o Late D.c. Sharma, O-13, Ashok
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
7. Prabodh Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijendra Sharma, O-13,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
8. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13823/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Mukesh Agarwal, 812/815, 8Th Floor, Vijay City Point,
Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001.
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through M.d., 707 Paris Point,
Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma D/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
----Respondents
9. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13825/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(6 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Arpit Gupta S/o Shri Maliram Gupta, Plot No. B-63 Sethi
Colony, Jaipur
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through Authorized Signatory
S.n. Gupta, 707 Paris Point, Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma D/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
6. Vijay Laxmi Sharma D/o Late D.c. Sharma, O-13, Ashok
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
7. Prabodh Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijendra Sharma, O-13,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
10. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13857/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Ramesh Chand Agarwal, Plot No. D-176-C, Bhragu Marg,
Kanti Chand Road, Bani Park, Jaipur
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Through M.d., 707 Paris Point,
Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
5. Kusum Lata Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
6. Vijay Laxmi Sharma D/o Late D.c. Sharma, O-13, Ashok
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(7 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
7. Prabodh Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijendra Sharma, O-13,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
11. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13864/2021
Union Bank Of India, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Officer
Pramod Kumar Tardia, K-13, Braj Anukampa Building, Ashok
Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Mukesh Agarwal, 812/815, 8Th Floor, Vijay City Point,
Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Sng Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through M.d., 707 Soni Paris
Point, Banipark, Jaipur-302016
4. Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur.
5. Kusum Lata Sharma D/o Unknown, R/o D-196, Puspak
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali, Jaipur
----Respondents
12. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6987/2021
M/s Akriti Landcon Pvt Ltd, Through Its Director/ Authorized
Signatory Director Shri Lalit Chaturvedi Son Of Late Shyam
Sundar Chaturvedi Aged 60 Years, Having Its Registered Office
At Shreenath Estate, Station Road, Kota (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building
Udhyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
302005 Through Chairman
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(8 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
13. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11372/2019
Gorbandh Fort And Palace L.l.p., Through Its Designated
Partner Vinay Chordia, Registered Address Plot No. A-6, Airport
Enclave Scheme, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Udh
(Urban Development And Housing) Having Its Office At
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Designated),
Rajasthan, Nagar Niyojan Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary/registrar.
3. Mrs. Nidhika Yadav W/o Mr. Hari Singh Yadav, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o C-572, Parikrama Path, Opp. St.
Stephen School, Panchsheel, Makadwali Road, Ajmer-
305001.
4. Mr. Hari Singh Yadav S/o Mr. Ramswaroop Yadav, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o C-572, Parikrama Path, Opp. St.
Stephen School, Panchsheel, Makadwali Road, Ajmer-
305001.
----Respondents
14. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15503/2019
M/s Akriti Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Address At
Shreenath Estate, Station Road, Kota-324002 Through Its
Director Shri Lalit Chaturvedi (Din No. 01951653) R/o B-89,
Indira Vihar, Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Udh
(Urban Development And Housing) Having Its Office At
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Designated),
Rajasthan, Nagar Niyojan Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary/registrar.
3. Mr. Girish Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Mr. Lokender Kumar
Agarwal, R/o Shreenath Orchid, Mala Road, Station Area,
Kota-324002.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(9 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
15. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19192/2019
Majestic Properties Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At 1/18B, Asaf Ali Raod, New Delhi 110002 And Site
Office At Jaisinghpura, Near Pushp Raj Petrol Pump, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur 302001 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Prashant Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Arun Dhandhania Son Of Shiva Prasad Dhandhania,
Resident Of Anant Niketan, 756, Otc Scheme, Rani Road,
Udaipur 313001 In The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondents
16. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19194/2019
Majestic Properties Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At 1/18B, Asaf Ali Raod, New Delhi 110002 And Site
Office At Jaisinghpura, Near Pushp Raj Petrol Pump, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur 302001 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Prashant Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Ratnesh Industries Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At 17/1, Civil Lines, Rampura, Suraj Nagar
(East), Jaipur 302006 In The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(10 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
17. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19195/2019
Majestic Properties Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At 1/18B, Asaf Ali Raod, New Delhi 110002 And Site
Office At Jaisinghpura, Near Pushp Raj Petrol Pump, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur 302001 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Prashant Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Ratnesh Properties Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At 17/1, Civil Lines, Rampura, Suraj Nagar
(East), Jaipur 302006 In The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondents
18. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19197/2019
Majestic Properties Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At 1/18B, Asaf Ali Raod, New Delhi 110002 And Site
Office At Jaisinghpura, Near Pushp Raj Petrol Pump, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur 302001 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Prashant Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Ratnesh Enterprises Private Limited, Having Its
Registered Address At 17/1, Civil Lines, Rampura, Suraj
Nagar (East), Jaipur 302006 In The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(11 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
19. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19198/2019
Majestic Properties Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At 1/18B, Asaf Ali Raod, New Delhi 110002 And Site
Office At Jaisinghpura, Near Pushp Raj Petrol Pump, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur 302001 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Prashant Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Anant Dhandhania Son Of Arun Dhandhania, Resident Of
Anant Niketan, 756, Otc Scheme, Rani Road, Udaipur
313001 In The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondents
20. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19933/2019
Lifestyle Supertech Private Limited, A Private Limited Company
Having Its Registered Office At H.no. 856, Sector-14,
Gurugram, Haryana-122001. Through Its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Ajay Chopra
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Udh
(Urban Development And Housing) Having Its Office At
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Designated),
Rajasthan Nagar Niyojan Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary/registrar.
3. The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, (Rera
Appellate Tribunal) (Under The Real Estate Regulation
And Development Act, 2016, Through Its Registrar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(12 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
21. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20008/2019
Ihome And Inrastructure Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At A-195/1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New
Delhi And Site Office At Lavanya, Opposite Delhi Public School,
Bhankrota, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302001 In The State Of
Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Sanjeev Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Vatsala Mathur, 13, Amrit Nagar, Iskcon Road, Jaipur
In The State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondents
22. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20336/2019
Grj Distributors And Developers Private Limited, Having Its
Registered Address At 64, Scindia House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110001 Through Its Authorized Representative Mr.
Hitesh Kumar Son Of Pyare Lal.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Mr. Vishal Minhas S/o Of Mr. Late Shree Nirvair Singh
Minhas, Resident Of 503, Sector-A, Pocket-C, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi-110070
4. Mrs. Saloni Minhas W/o Vishal Minhas, Resident Of 503,
Sector-A, Pocket-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(13 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
23. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21525/2019
Terra Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Registered Address At Terra
Group, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 18, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana
Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Pankaj Sharma Son
Of Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan, Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005. In The
State Of Rajasthan.
3. Mr. Mahesh Sharma S/o Of Shri Govind Lal Sharma,
Resident Of 855/28, Lane No. 12, Jyoti Park, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
----Respondents
24. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21574/2019
Arihant Dream Infra Projects Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At 2Nd Floor, Class Of Pearl, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road,
Jaipur - 302018 Through Its Director, Mr. Rishab Goyal
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan, Having Its Office At
Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur
2. Praveen Kumar Mundra, Mundra Sadan, Kuye Wali Gali,
Baharli Bundi, Bundi, Rajasthan
3. Raghunath Prasad Jain, S/o Late Shri Govind Ram Jain,
Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 9, Dev Nagar,
Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
25. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 242/2020
Genesis Infratech Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At J-81, Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi Through Its
Director/ Authorized Representative Shri Pankaj Mehta.
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(14 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Mr. Kartar Singh S/o Of Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Resident Of
520, Village Nunaud, Rohatak, Haryana-124001.
----Respondents
26. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 950/2020
Genesis Infratech Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At J-81, Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Himanshu Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Sita Ram Badoni, S/o Of Late Shri Amla Nand, Resident
Of N-358, Sector 8, Rk Puram, New Delhi- 110022
----Respondents
27 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 953/2020
Genesis Infratech Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At J-81, Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Himanshu Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(15 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan
3. Narendra Datt, S/o Of Late Shri D Prasad, Resident Of
751, Sector-D, Mandir Marg, New Delhi-110001
----Respondents
28. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1816/2020
M/s Krp Industries Ltd., Green Aalyam, Mala Road, Kota
Junction, 324002 Through Its Director And Authorized
Signatory Shri Prakash Gwalera S/o Late Shri Durga Lal
Gwalera, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 5-A-8, Vigyan Nagar, Kota
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Jai Kishan Rathore S/o Shri Heera Lal Rathore, R/o B-28,
Civil Lines, Nayapura, Kota-324001.
----Respondent
29. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1831/2020
M/s Krp Industries Ltd., Green Aalyam, Mala Road, Kota
Junction, 324002 Through Its Director And Authorized
Signatory Shri Prakash Gwalera S/o Late Shri Durga Lal
Gwalera, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 5-A-8, Vigyan Nagar, Kota
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Dinesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Jangid, R/o
C/o Shri Khushbir Singh Bedi, Kartar Niwas, Near Dak Bunglaw
Girls School, Kota Junction, Rajasthan-324002.
----Respondent
30. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8891/2020
Canopy Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Now Known As Terra Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
Having its Registered Address At Terra Group, 5Th Floor, Plot No
18, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana Through Its Authorized
Signatory Shri Manendra Arora S/o Shri H.c. Arora
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(16 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Designated),
Rajasthan, Having Its address at R/o 2Nd And 3Rd Floor,
Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan
3. Kiran Goyal W/o Shri Deepak Kumar, R/o House No
204/1, Ward No 10, Kath Mandi, Narnaul, Haryana
----Respondents
31. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9154/2020
M/s Fs Housing Private Limited, Through Its Whole Time
Director Charan Singh Khangarot S/o Shri Mukut Singh
Khangarot Having Its Registered Office At A-4, Airport Enclave
Scheme, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Udh
(Urban Development And Housing) Having Its Office At
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Designated),
Rajasthan, Nagar Niyojan Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary/registrar.
3. Avadh Bihari Tandon S/o Late Shri Krishan Bihari Tandon,
R/o A-308, Vaishali Retreat Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur-302021.
4. Mrs. Savitri Tandon W/o Avadh Bihari Tandon, R/o A-308,
Vaishali Retreat Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-
302021.
----Respondents
32. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15000/2020
Avalon Projects, A Unit Of Grj Distributors And Developers Pvt.
Ltd., 64 Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi (India)-
110001 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Jasvir Singh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having Its
Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(17 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
2. Prabhsharan Singh S/o Mahesh Inder Singh, Resident Of
12/424, 1St Floor, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-110087
----Respondents
33. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15013/2020
Elegant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Registered Address
At Terra Group, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 18, Sector-44, Gurgaon,
Haryana Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Mahendra Arora
Son Of Shri H.c. Arora.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The
State Of Rajasthan.
3. Semender Singh Son Of Shri Raj Kumar Singh, Resident
Of N-12, Second Floor, Flat No. -1, Rajpur Khurd
Extension, Haregovind Enclave, Chattarpur, New Delhi.
----Respondents
34. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 577/2021
Shri Gargi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Address At
39-40, Vishvesyaria Nagar, Near Gopal Pura Flyover, Jaipur
Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Hansraj
Mishra Son Of Late Shri Shiv Prasad Mishra
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Food Building,
Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having Its
Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog
Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur In The State Of
Rajasthan
3. Ankur Gupta S/o Of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Resident
Of House No. 1827, Sector 65, Faridabad
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(18 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
35. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1456/2021
Avalon Projects A Unit Of Grj Distributors And Developers Pvt.
Ltd., 64, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi (India)-
110001 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Jasvir Singh S/o
Mr. Dharmvir Singh Aged About 31 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur
----Respondents
36. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4801/2021
M/s Star Raison Landmarks, Through Its Partner/ Authorized
Signatory Mr. Punit Rai S/o Mr. Raghunath Rai Aged About 47
Years, Having Its Registered Office At A-26, Basement, New
Krishna Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi (India) - 110018.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) -
302005 Through Chairman
2. Registrar Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
37. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5136/2021
Murano Service Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Mr.
Vibhishek Pal Singh S/o Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aged About 40
Years, Having Its Registered Office At Office No. 8, 4Th Floor,
Unique Destination, Laxmi Mandir Crossing, Tonk Road, Jaipur-
302015
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(19 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
38. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5137/2021
Mantra Lifestyle Homes Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Mr.
Abhishek Pal Singh S/o Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aged About 45 Years,
Having Its Registered Office At office No.14, 4Th Floor, Unique
Destination, Laxmi Mandir Crossing Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
39. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5138/2021
Jaipur Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Mr.
Abhishek Pal Singh S/o Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aged About 45 Years
Having Its Registered Office At Office No. 1, 4Th Floor, Unique
Destination, Laxmi Mandir Crossing, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
40. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5139/2021
Modest Infra Ltd., Through Its Director Mr. Vibhishek Pal Singh
S/o Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aged 40 Years, Having Its Registered
Office At 16 A, 1St Floor, Palm Spring Lokhandwala Complex,
Andheri West, Mumbai-400053.
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(20 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
41. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5140/2021
Unique Madhuban Homes Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorizsed
Signatory Director Mr. Vibhishek Pal Singh S/o Mr. Ajay Pal
Singh Aged About 40 Years, Having Its Registered Office At
Office No. 2,511, 5Th Floor, Unique Destination, Laxmi Mandir
Crossing Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
42. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5141/2021
Royal Buildsquare Pvt. Ltd, Through Its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Abhishek Pal Singh S/o Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aged About 45
Years, Having Its Registered Office No. 9 At 4Th Floor, Unique
Destination, Laxmi Mandir Crossing Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(21 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
----Respondents
43. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5142/2021
M/s Astral Buildwell Llp, Through Its Partner/ Authorised
Signatory Mr. Vibhishek Pal Singh S/o Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aged
About 40 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 4Th Floor,
Unique Destination, Laxmi Mandir Crossing Tonk Road, Jaipur-
302015
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
44. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5143/2021
Royal Living Homes Pvt. Ltd, Through Its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Abhishek Pal Singh S/o Ajay Pal Singh Aged About 45 Years,
Having Its Registered Office At Office No. 3, 5Th Floor, Unique
Destination, Laxmi Mandir Crossing, Tonk Road, Jaipur -
302015.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
45. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5144/2021
M/s Skypeer Infra Build Llp, Through Its Partner / Authorised
Signatory Mr. Vibhishek Pal Singh S/o Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aged
About 40 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 4Th Floor,
Unique Destination, Laxmi Mandir Crossing, Tonk Road, Jaipur
-302015
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(22 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
46. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5145/2021
V.n. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director/ Authorized
Signatory Navin Hiranandani S/o Ashok Kumar Hiranandani
Aged About 44 Years, Having Its Registered Office At Office No.
20, 21, 22, 2Nd Floor, Silver Square Mall, C-18, Bhagwan Das
Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001, Rajasthan, India.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur
----Respondents
47. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6899/2021
M/s Hindustan Fibres Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 7 Km
Bhiwadi, Mega Road, Village Banbirpur, Bhiwadi, Tapukukda,
Alwar (Rajasthan) Through Its Director, Mr. Gajendra Singh
Singhvi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj) - 302005 Through Its
Chairman.
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj) - 302005 Through Its
Registrar.
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(23 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
----Respondents
48. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7174/2021
Genesis Infratech Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At J-81, Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi Through Its
Authorized Signatory Shri Pankaj Mehta
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having
Its Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondent
49. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7180/2021
Swastik Homebuild Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Address At Unit No. 18, Tower-B, 6Th Floor, Emaar Digital
Greens, Golf Course Ext. Road, Setor 61, Gurgaon, Haryana-
122102 Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Pankaj Mehta
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having
Its Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondent
50. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7322/2021
Terra Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Registered Address At Terra
Group, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 18, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana
Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Mahendra Arora Son Of
Shri H.c. Arora
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having
Its Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(24 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
51. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7335/2021
Elegant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Registered Address
At Terra Group, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 18, Sector-44, Gurgaon,
Haryana Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Mahendra Arora
Son Of Shri H.c. Arora
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having
Its Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondent
52. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7336/2021
Terra Developers, Having Its Registered Address At Terra
Group, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 18, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana
Through Its Partner Shri Mahendra Arora Son Of Shri H.c. Arora
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having
Its Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondent
53. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7793/2021
M/s Goldenline Infrastructures Private Limited, Registered Office
At Plot No. 1, Local Shopping Centre, Sharda Niketan,
Pitampura, New Delhi, North East Delhi 110034, Through Its
Authorized Representative, Mr. Rinku Ram Meena S/o Shri
Sultan Singh Meena Age About 25 Y.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005, Through Its
Chairman.
2. Ishwari Tilwani W/o Vaprimal Tiwari, Aged About 73
Years, R/o House No. 108, Krishna Mention, Thatera
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(25 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Chowk, Inside Vsrigate, Ajmer.
3. Aerens Gold Souk International Limited, Through The
Official Liquidator Attached To Honble High Court Of
Delhi, Lok Nayak Bhawan, 8Th Floor, Khan Market, New
Delhi.
----Respondents
54. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7861/2021
Chetan Prakash Goyal Son Of Late Shree Prakash Chandra
Goyal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Ac-3, Sunder Nagar,
Banipark, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan Having
Its Address At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan,
Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondent
55. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8214/2021
I Home And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered
Office At A-195/1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase -1, New
Delhi- 110054 Through Dhirendra Singh S/o Late Shri
Ramadhar Singh, Aged About 47 Years Having Its Office At A
195-1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase -1, New Delhi- 110054
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005 Through Its
Registrar
3. Saurabh Guapta S/o Gopal Ram Gupta, aged about 32
years, R/o A-14, Padmawati Colony, Kings Road, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(26 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
56. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8215/2021
I Home And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered
Office At A-195/1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase -1, New
Delhi - 110054 Through Dhirendra Singh S/o Late Shri
Ramadhar Singh, Aged About 47 Years Having Its Office At A
195-1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase 1, New Delhi 110054.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Its
Registrar
3. Deepika Agarwal W/o Mr. Shishir Agarwal, Aged About
40 Years, R/o B-2105, 20Th Floor, Ireo Victory Valley,
Sector 67, Gurugram - 122101, Haryana.
----Respondents
57. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8219/2021
I Home And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered
Office At A-195/1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase -1, New
Delhi - 110054 Through Dhirendra Singh S/o Late Shri
Ramadhar Singh, Aged About 47 Years Having Its Office At A
195-1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase 1, New Delhi 110054.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005 Through Its
Registrar
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(27 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
58. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8220/2021
I Home And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered
Office At A-195/1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase -1, New
Delhi - 110054 Through Dhirendra Singh S/o Late Shri
Ramadhar Singh, Aged About 47 Years Having Its Office At A
195-1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase 1, New Delhi 110054.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Its
Registrar
3. Deepak Bhatnagar S/o Virander Mohan Bhatnagar, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o 64, Sbbj Bank Officers Colony, New
Sanganer Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
59. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8221/2021
Habitech Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., 138, Pocket A, Sector P-4,
Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201306
Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Kamal Singh Aged 50
Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-302005 Through
Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005.
3. Rajbir S/o Shri Hari Singh, House No. 592, Vpo
Kharkhara, District Rewari Haryana-123401.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(28 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
60. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8224/2021
Innovative Buildestates Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Manager
Administration Mr. Rajesh Thada S/o Mr. Ramesh Chand Thada
Aged About 33 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 736,
Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
61. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9369/2021
M/s Shri Gargi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At 39-40 Vishvesariya Nagar, Near Gopalpura Flyover, Jaipur,
Rajasthan - 302018, Through Its Director Shri Hansraj Mishra,
R/o Plot No. B-314, 10B Scheme, Gopalpura Bye-Pass, Jaipur -
302018.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Through Its
Chairman, Having Its Registered Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic
Building, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.) - 302005.
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Through Its
Registrar, Having Its Registered Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic
Building, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.) - 302005.
3. Ankur Guptta S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About
39 Years, R/o House 1827, Sector 65, Faridabad,
Haryana.
----Respondents
62. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9375/2021
M/s Shri Gargi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At 39-40 Vishvesariya Nagar, Near Gopalpura Flyover, Jaipur,
Rajasthan - 302018, Through Its Director Shri Hansraj Mishra,
R/o Plot No. B - 314, 10B Scheme, Gopalpura Bye-Pass, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(29 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
- 302018
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Through Its
Chairman, Having Its Registered Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic
Building, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.) - 302005
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Through Its
Registrar, Having Its Registered Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic
Building, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.) - 302005
3. Vineet Taparia S/o Shri Radheshyam Taparia, Aged About
38 Years, R/o 1101, Viraj Tower, Junction Of Andheri
Kurla Road, Western Express Highway, Andheri East,
Mumbai - 400093
----Respondents
63. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10231/2021
Felicity Projects Pvt. Ltd., F-197-A, Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar
East Delhi, Dl-110092, Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr.
Atul Mathur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan,
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor Rsic Building,
Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) -
302005 Through Its Chairman.
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur
Rajasthan, Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor Rsic
Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.) - 302005 Through Its Registrar.
----Respondents
64. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11069/2021
M/s Arg Developers Private Limited, Having Registered Office At
E-52, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302001
Through Its Director Sh. Atma Ram Gupta
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(30 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan
Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Building,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur(Raj)-
302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Urban Development And Housing, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Housing
And Urban Affairs, Nirman Bhawan, C-Wing, Dr. Maulana
Azad Road, New Delhi - 110011.
----Respondents
65. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14591/2021
Pritam Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
58-C, Sector C, Talwandi, Kesopura, Kota, Rajasthan 324005.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.)- 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.)- 302005 Through Its
Registrar
----Respondents
66. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12562/2021
V.p. Spaces Private Limited, Through Its Director, Mr. Ashish
Manchanda Having Its Registered Office At 802, 8Th Floor,
Jmd Megapolis Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana ) - 122103.
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(31 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Its
Registrar
----Respondents
67. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13555/2021
Auric Buildsquare Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Shiv
Shakti Buildsquare Private Ltd.), Through Its
Director/authorized Signatory Kamal Dewan S/o Gyarsi Lal
Dewan, Aged About 45 Years, Having Its Registered Office At
Building No. 1, Second Floor, Queens House, Queens Road,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021, Rajasthan, India.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.)- 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.)- 302005 Through Its
Registrar
3. Arun Sharma, Son Of Shri Jagdish Narain Sharma,
Resident Of A-81, Ashok Marg, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur-
302016, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
68. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13600/2021
One Realty Group, Through Its Partner/ Authorized Signatory
Shree Krishna Gupta S/o Anil Santu Lal Gupta, Aged About 32
Years, Having Its Office At100, 3Rd Floor Kalyan Tower, Opp.
Rajul Augusta Apartment, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, 302021
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(32 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.)- 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Raj.)- 302005 Through Its
Registrar
3. Bhanwar Singh, Son Of Shri Chattar Singh, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of 345, Amar Nagar C,panchyawala,
Sirsi Road, Jaipur-302034, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
69. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12738/2021
1. Vivanta Corporation, Through Its Sole Proprietor, Mr.
Vivek Chordia, Having Its Registered Office At 29, Jan
Path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302019
2. Arihant Enterprises, Through Its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Vivek Chordia, Having Its Registered Office At 61,
Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. Mr. Vinay Chordia Son Of Shri Labh Chand Chordia,
Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 61, Sangram Colony,
C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Mr. Vivek Chordia Son Of Shri Vinay Chordia, Aged
About 40 Years, Resident Of 61, Sangram Colony, C-
Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipr (Raj.) 302005 Through Its
Chairman
2. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Having Its
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(33 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Office At 2Nd Floor, Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipr (Raj.) 302005 Through Its
Registrar
----Respondents
70. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12127/2021
M/s Sanwariyaji Business Venture Pvt. Ltd., Through Its
Director Shankar Khandelwal, Aged About 50 Years, Having
Its Registered Office At 59, Mansarovar Colony, Kalwar Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302012.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Rajasthan, Having Its Office At 2Nd And 3Rd Floor,
Rsic Building, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Chairman.
2. Registrar, Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Jaipur.
3. Mr. Mukesh Ahuja S/o Not Known, Residing At Flat No.
B-704, Guman Eternity, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Devendra Sharma
Mr. Harshal Tholia, Mr. Rubal Tholia
Mr. Ankit Rahtore, Mr. Abhi Goyal
Mr. Nikhil Yadav, Ms. Priyanshi Katta
Ms. Namrata Malik
Mr. Priyanshu Malik
Mr. Siddharth Ranka
Ms. Kritika on behalf of
Mr. Anant Kasliwal
Mr. Samkit Jain, Mr. Mitesh Rathore
Ms. Shruti Rai, Mr. Ankit Sareen
Mr. Prakul Khurana
Mr. Jitendra Mishra with
Mr. Jai Sharma, Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia
Mr. Ankit Jain,
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Choudhary
Mr. Waseem Ahmed Qureshi
Ms. Saloni Dagur, Mr. Hardik Mishra
Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 09:25:43 PM)
(34 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
through VC assisted by
Mr. Siddhant Jain
Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani,
Mr. Himanshu, Mr. Rohan Agarwal
Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Adhiraj Modi, Ms. Sunita Pareek
Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with
Ms. Archana, Mr. Yashodhar Pandey,
Mr. Mehul Harkawat
Mr. Reashm Bhargava
Mr. Siddhant Paliwal
Mr. Mohit Khandelwal
Mr. Shubham Khandelwal
Mr. Dikshant Jain, Ms. Pallavi Mehta
Mr. Rudraksh Shrarma
Ms. Abhilasha Sharma
Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari
Mr. Nachiketa Pareek
Mr. Himanshu Jain
Mr. Lokesh Jangid on behalf of
Mr. Bharat Vyas,
Mr. Yogesh Pujari
Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat
Mr. Goverdhan Singh
Mr. Pranjul Chopra with
Mr. Novotna Rajawat, Mr. Ajit Maloo
Mr. Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi
Mr. Pratyush Sharma
Mr. Amit Chhangani
Mr. R.K. Kasana
Mr. Maneesh Sharma with
Mr. Lakshay Pareek
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
REPORTABLE
By the Court: Per Akil Kureshi CJ.
14/12/2021
1. Central question involved in these petitions is of the validity
of Regulation 9 of Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ' the Regulations
of 2017'). Peripheral issues raised and consequential directions
sought by the petitioners in different petitions vary. However since
(35 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
the validity of Regulation 9 of the Regulation of 2017 is the focal
point, we have combined all these petitions for common
consideration. Some of the petitions are filed by the promoters of
housing projects against whom the allottees of residential units
have approached RERA and in whose favour RERA has passed
certain directions. Some of the petitions have been filed by the
Banks who are the secured creditors of the promoters and who
wish to take coercive measures under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as 'SARFAESI Act')
to recover their unpaid dues.
2. For convenience we may refer to facts stated in Civil Writ
Petition No.13688/2021. This petition is filed by the Union Bank of
India. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Regulation 9
stating that the same is ultra vires the provisions of the Rajasthan
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
to be referred as 'RERA Act'). By way of consequential relief the
petitioner has challenged a resolution dated 25.09.2020 adopted
by RERA resolving that all matters shall be heard by single
benches. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated
20.09.2021 passed by a single member of RERA giving certain
directions with respect to semi constructed residential complex
over which the petitioner bank claims security interest. The case
of the bank is that it is not amenable to jurisdiction of RERA since
RERA can issue directions only against a promoter, allottee or a
real estate agent. The bank being none of these entities, RERA
cannot entertain any proceedings against the bank.
3. Perusal of the impugned order passed by RERA would show
that the proceedings were instituted on complaints filed by the
(36 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
allottees of residential units in a complex which was being
developed by the promoters. The scheme comprised of 38 flats.
The project was launched in the year 2014. Agreements were
executed with the allottees in the same year. Substantial amounts
were also paid by the allottees towards the purchase price. The
developer failed to complete the project and hand over the
possession.
It appears that allottees had taken loan from ICICI Bank
against the allotment of flats on the strength of tripartite
agreement. Resultantly the security interest in favour of ICICI
Bank was created. The same was also registered with the Central
Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security
Interest of India (for short 'CERSAI'). Despite this, according to
the allottees developers had taken the loan of Rs.15 crores from
Andhra Bank which is now merged into Union Bank of India, the
present petitioner, by creating a mortgage in favour of the bank.
This was done on or around 04.06.2016. According to the allottees
this was done without verification of existing charge on the
properties in question. The allottees therefore alleged before RERA
that such loan was sanctioned wholly fraudulently and with
malafide intentions.
In the meantime since the developer failed to repay the dues
to the bank, the bank treated the account as NPA and tried to
recover its unpaid dues by resorting to provisions of SARFAESI
Act. Some of the allottees approached the DRT and thereafter
DRAT to prevent the bank from auctioning the properties and
thereafter approached RERA for taking suitable action against all
concerned including the bank.
(37 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Before RERA the bank raised several contentions including
that RERA has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint against
the bank and that in view of the proceedings which are pending
before the DRT and DRAT, the complaints should not in any case
be entertained.
These objections of the bank were turned down by RERA.
Referring to the definition of promoter contained in Section 2 (zk)
of RERA Act, the authority was of the opinion that bank being an
assignee of the promoter, would fall within the definition of
promoter. Regarding the effect of the SARFAESI Act to the present
proceedings, the authority relied on the decision of Supreme Court
in case of Bikram Chatterji and Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors. reported in 2019 19 SCC 161.
4. In such background Counsel for the bank raised following
contentions:-
(i) Regulation 9 of the Regulation of 2017 is ultra vires the
parent Act.
(ii) Even the regulation by itself does not envisage general
delegation as has been done by the impugned resolution dated
25.09.2020.
(iii) Under purported exercise of powers under Regulation 9 by
resolution dated 25.09.2020 arbitrary powers have been vested in
single members of RERA to decide all complaints which is not even
envisaged under the Act.
(iv) With respect to the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by RERA
it was argued that no complaint against the bank is maintainable.
By instituting the provisions under RERA Act, the allottees have
effectively challenged the orders passed by DRT and DRAT.
(38 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
(v) It was contended that the mortgage in favour of the bank in
the present case was created before RERA Act was enacted. This
Act therefore can have no effect on past mortgages since the Act
has not been given retrospective effect.
5. We have also heard the learned advocates appearing for
other petitioners who have similarly challenged Regulation 9
contending that the same is ultra vires the parent Act.
6. On the other hand the opposition has been made principally
by the advocates for the allottees and for the authority. Their
combined contentions can be recorded as under:-
(i) Regulation 9 is validly framed. This aspect has been
examined in slightly different context by the Supreme Court in
case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of UP and Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s).6745-6749/2021)
decided on 11.11.2021.
(ii) The banks are amenable to jurisdiction of RERA as being
assignee of the promoter.
(iii) The orders passed by RERA are appealable before the
Appellate Authority. Writ petition therefore should not be
entertained directly.
(iv) Regarding interplay of RERA Act and SARFAESI Act they
relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bikram
Chatterji (supra).
7. We may first deal with the validity of Regulation 9 of the
Regulation of 2019. To establish 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
the sale of real estate project in an efficient and transparent
manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate
(39 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy
dispute redressal and also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to
hear from the decisions of RERA and matters connected therewith,
RERA Act was enacted. Section 3 of RERA requires prior
registration of real estate project with RERA. Application for
registration would be made under Section 4 and would be granted
under Section 5 subject to fulfillment of conditions. Under Section
7 the authority has the power to revoke the registration under
certain circumstances. Section 9 envisages registration of real
estate agents.
8. Chapter III of the Act pertains to functions and duties of
promoters. Chapter IV pertains to rights and duties of the
allottees. Chapter V pertains to Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Section 20 contained in chapter V envisages establishment and
incorporation of Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Section 21
pertains to composition of authority. Section 22 prescribes
qualification of the Chairperson and members of authority. Section
30 provides that no act or proceedings of authority shall be invalid
merely by reason of any vacancy in or any defect in the
constitution of the authority or any defect in the appointment of a
person acting as a member or any irregularity in the procedure of
the authority not affecting the merits of the case.
9. Section 31 pertains to filing of complaints with the authority
or the adjudicating officer. Sub-section (1) of Section 31 provides
that any aggrieved person may file a complaint to the authority or
the adjudicating officer 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. Section 34 pertains to functions of the authority
(40 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
and includes the functions to register and regulate real estate
projects and real estate agents registered under the Act and to
ensure compliance of the regulations or orders or directions made
in exercise of the powers under the Act and to ensure compliance
of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the
real estate agents under the Act, rules and regulations made
thereunder. Section 38 pertains to powers of the authority. Sub-
section (1) of Section 38 provides that authority shall have powers
to impose penalty or interest in regard to any contraventions of
obligations cast upon the promoters, allottees and the real estate
agents under the Act or rules and regulations made thereunder.
10. Chapter VII pertains to Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Section 53 contained in the said Chapter pertains to powers of the
Tribunal against an order that the Appellate Tribunal may pass. An
aggrieved person in terms of Section 58 can appeal to the High
Court on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100
of the CPC.
11. Chapter X contains miscellaneous provisions. Section 79
contained in the said chapter pertains to bar of jurisdiction and
provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction 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 the Act to determine. Section 81 provides that the
authority may, by general or special order in writing, delegate to
any member, officer of the authority or any other person, subject
to conditions such of the powers and functions under the act as it
may deem necessary except for the power to make regulations
under section 85.
(41 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
12. Section 84 pertains to power of appropriate Government to
make rules. Sub-section (1) of Section 84 empowers the
appropriate Government by issuing notification to frame rules for
carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 85 pertains to
power to make regulations. Sub-section (1) of Section 85 provides
that the authority shall within a period of three months from its
establishment by notification make regulations consistent with the
Act or the rules made thereunder to carry out the purposes of the
Act.
13. Section 89 gives overriding effect to the Act by providing
that provisions of the Act shall have the effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force.
14. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 85 the
authority has framed the said regulations. Regulation 9 reads as
under:-
"Adjudication proceedings- For adjudication
proceedings with respect to complaints filed with the
Authority, the Authority may, by order, direct that
specific matters or issues be heard and decided by a
single bench of either the Chairperson or any member
of the Authority."
15. The authority in exercise of the powers under Regulation 9,
in its meeting dated 25.09.2020 dealt with agenda item-2 which
pertained to decision regarding constitution of benches for
hearing in the Court. The decision taken thereon reads as under:-
"5.2 Consequent upon the joining of two members of
the Authority, the following decisions were taken:
"5.2.1 The complaints and adjudication matters
required to be decided by the Authority under the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and
rules and regulations made thereunder will henceforth
be heard and decided in the following manner
(42 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
(i) Usually, all complaints and adjudication matters
will be heard and decided by Single Benches,
constituted as under:
(a) Single Bench of Shri Nihal Chand Goel,
Hon'ble Chairman.
(b) Single Bench of Shri Shailendra Agarwal,
Hon'ble Member
(c) Single Bench of Shri Salvinder Singh Sohata,
Hon'ble Member
(ii) All Single Benches, wherever they deem it
necessary or desirable will be free to refer any
particular matter or class of matters to Full
Bench, which shall comprise of Hon'ble Chairman
and at least one Member, as available."
16. As per this decision all complaints and adjudication matters
required to be decided by RERA will be heard and decided usually
by Single Benches. However all Single Benches wherever
deemed necessary or desirable, may refer any particular matter
or class of matters to Full Bench which shall comprise of
chairman and at least one member as available. In terms of this
resolution, thus ordinarily all matters will be heard by a single
member Bench of RERA. The discretion would be vested in such
member to fix a particular matter or class of matters before the
Full Bench comprising of the chairman and at least one member.
17. We may record that the Allahabad High Court had occasion
to consider somewhat similar issue of delegation of the authority
of RERA into one Member to entertain complaints in case of M/s
K.D.P. Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. decided by
Allahabad High Court on 04.02.2020. It was held that the order
passed by one member of RERA is legal and valid. This was seen
in light of Section 81 of RERA Act. Once again in case of M/s
Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. the Division
(43 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Bench of Allahabad High Court considered the validity of the
powers exercised by single member of RERA. The Court referred
to the provisions contained in the Act and regulations framed by
the authority and upheld the power of the single member to
entertain the complaints. Reliance was placed on the decision in
case of M/S K.D.P. Buildwell (supra). We must however
record that challenge to Regulation 24 of UP Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019 which pertained
to power to delegate the matters to single members was kept
open since in that case no such powers were exercised. In this
decision the Court had referred to a Division Bench judgment of
Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 16.10.2020 in case of
Janta Land Promoters Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India and
Ors., reported in 4 RCR (Civil) 845 to which we would make a
detailed reference shortly. The Allahabad High Court however did
not accept the view adopted by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the said case.
18. The decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s
Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was
challenged before the Supreme Court. Several questions were
raised and answered. One of the questions was whether Section
81 of the Act authorizes the authority to delegate its power to
single member to hear complaints instituted under Section 31.
After referring to the statutory provisions and relying upon
several decisions of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the
said decision upheld the delegation of power to decide the
complaints by single members in terms of Section 81 of the Act.
The conclusion of the Supreme Court in this respect can be noted
as under:-
(44 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
"120. In view of the remedial mechanism
provided under the scheme of the Act 2016, in
our considered view, the power of delegation
under Section 81 of the Act by the authority to
one of its member for deciding
applications/complaints under Section 31 of the
Act is not only well defined but expressly
permissible and that cannot be said to be dehors
the mandate of law."
19. Before going further we may record that the question of
applicability of RERA Act to the development projects which had
commenced earlier was also considered by the Supreme Court.
To this aspect we would refer at a later stage. For the present we
may refer to the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in case of Janta Land Promoters Private
Ltd. (supra) on which heavy reliance has been placed by the
counsel for the petitioners. It was a case in which regulation
permitting delegation of power to the authority similar to
regulation 9 of RERA Regulations of 2017 was under challenge.
The Division Bench held that such powers cannot be delegated
and regulation in question was not valid. Interestingly the
decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of M/s K.D.P. Build
Well Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was cited. The Punjab and Haryana High
Court was however not able to concur with the view expressed by
the Allahabad High Court in the said decision. We have referred
to these elements arising out of the judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in case of Janta Land Promoters Private
Ltd. (supra) since as noted earlier the Allahabad High Court in
case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(Sspra) had taken note of the decision of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in case of Janta Land Promoters Private
Ltd. (supra) as well as its own decision in case of M/s K.D.P.
(45 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Build Well Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Division Bench followed the
decision of another Bench of its own High Court. These aspects
were significant because the decision of the Allahabad High Court
in case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) which followed and reiterated the view expressed in M/s
K.D.P. Build Well Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been approved by the
Supreme Court in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers
Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Reliance of the Counsel for the petitioners on
the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Janta
Land Promoters Private Ltd. (supra) therefore would lose
much of its significance.
20. In our view the controversy at hand is substantially
governed by the decision of Supreme Court in case of M/s
Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We
are conscious that it was a case in which the question was
delegation of the authority in terms of Section 81 of the Act
which we may recall provides that the authority may by general
special order in writing be delegated to any member such powers
and functions under the Act as it may deem necessary. When the
Supreme Court has upheld the delegation of powers to adjudicate
in single member of the authority in terms of Section 81 of the
Act, recourse to Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2017 would
become academic. The resolution challenged by the petitioners
passed by RERA delegating powers to decide complaints into
single members, could as well have been passed in exercise of
powers under Section 81. In fact the resolution itself does not
refer to the source of power under Regulation 9 alone. Whether
so stated or not, this resolution can always stress the source of
the power under Section 81 of the Act since it is well settled that
(46 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
non-mentioning of the provisions or wrong reference to a
statutory provision for exercise of power would not invalidate the
exercise if powers can be traced to any statutory source. In fact
the resolution itself refers section 81 of the Act as well as
regulation 9 of the regulations. Even otherwise, Regulation 9 is
merely procedural provision. Section 81 of RERA Act gives powers
to the authority to delegate to any member powers and functions
under the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 85 enables the
authority to frame regulations consistent with the Act and the
Rules. Regulation 9 framed in exercise of such powers merely
regulates the process of delegation of powers in single members
of RERA. This regulation is thus not ultra vires the Act or invalid
for any other reason.
21. Coming to the question of applicability of RERA while
SARFAESI Act is also activated, we may notice that Section 35 of
the SARFAESI Act provids that the provisions under the said Act
shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force
or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.
Similarly worded provision giving overriding effect to RERA Act is
contained in Section 89. This Section as noted, provides that
provisions of the said Act (i.e. RERA Act), shall have the effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force. The question would
therefore arise which of the two provisions giving overriding
effect to the statute would prevail.
22. In case of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory
Commission Vs. CESC Ltd., reported in (2002) 8 SCC 715, a
three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the similar
(47 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
conflict between the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Electricity
Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, both of which contained
similar overriding provisions. In this context it was held and
observed as under:-
"56. First of all the non obstante clause in
Schedule VI to the 1948 Act refers only to the
provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Schedule VI which is found in the Act of 1948, the
legislature could not have contemplated a
subsequent enactment containing a non obstante
clause coming into force, nor does it say that this
non obstante clause applies to or is in preference
to all other enactments including future
enactments. Therefore this ground itself is
sufficient to reject the argument of the learned
counsel for the respondent as to the prevailing
effect of the non obstante clause in Schedule VI
to the 1948 Act. That apart, a reading of the 1998
Act vis-a-vis the 1948 Act with reference to
Schedule VI, or with special reference to Section
57 and 57A of the 1948 Act. It is seen that
Sections 22 and 29 of the 1998 Act are special
laws and the 1948 Act is only a general law in
regard to determination of tariff. Consequently,
because of the accepted principle in law that a
general law yields to a special law, the provisions
of the 1998 Act must prevail. As a matter of fact,
this is the view taken by another Division Bench
of the Calcutta High Court in regard to this
principle in law, as could be seen from the
impugned judgment itself, but surprisingly after
noticing the same, the impugned judgment
proceeds to take a contrary view without either
distinguishing the previous judgment of a
Coordinate Bench or referring the matter to a
larger Bench. Be that as it may, this question is
no more res integra. This Court in the case of
Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and Anr. after
following an earlier judgments of this Court held:
"40. Alternatively, the Companies Act,
1956 and the RDB Act can both be
treated as special laws, and the principle
that when there are two special laws, the
latter will normally prevail over the
former if there is a provision in the later
special Act giving it overriding effect, can
also be applied. Such a provision is there
in the RDB Act, namely, Section 34. A
similar situation arose in Maharashtra
Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and
(48 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Investment Corporation of Maharashtra
Ltd. where there was inconsistency
between two special laws, the Finance
Corporation Act, 1951 and the Sick
Industries Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985. The latter
contained Section 32 which gave
overriding effect to its provisions and
was held to prevail over the former. It
was pointed out by Ahmadi, J. that both
special statutes contained non obstante
clauses but that the "1985 Act being a
subsequent enactment, the non obstante
clause therein would ordinarily prevail
over the non obstante clause in Section
46-B of the 1951 Act unless it is found
that the 1985 Act is a general statute
and the 1951 Act is a special one."
Therefore, in view of the Section 34 of
the RDB Act, the said Act overrides the
Companies Act, to the extent there is
anything inconsistent between the Acts."
23. The judicial trend would thus suggest that in the event of
direct conflict between the two central statutes giving overriding
effect to the Act, ordinarily the subsequent legislation would
prevail. It was not necessary to dilate on this issue any further
since the Supreme Court in the case of Bikram Chatterji
(supra) in the context of RERA and SARFAESI has stated as
under:-
"139. A submission has also been raised that the
RERA recognises and protects interests of the lenders
and does not in any manner take away rights under
any of the existing statutes such as T.P. Act, Debt
Recovery Tribunal Act, SARFAESI Act. It is apparent
from a perusal of RERA, which is a special Act, that
certain rights have been created in favour of the
buyers. The provisions of RERA have to prevail. When
we come to the question of protection of rights of
buyers even if RERA had not been enacted, under
aforesaid laws in the facts of the case, a different view
could not have been taken. However, there is no
dispute that the bankers would have the right to
recover their dues from whom and in what manner is
the question which we have already answered. The
provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers
and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent
action, ensures completion of the building and it is the
(49 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
duty of the court to protect and ensure the home
buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them
responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under
the said statute. We are not absolving the home
buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At
the same time, they have the right of enforcement of
their right for compensation due to undue delay in
completion of the project."
24. We will next take up the question whether RERA would have
jurisdiction in cases where the transactions between borrowers
and the banks are completed before enactment of the Act. In
other words if the loan is already availed by mortgaging the
property and creating security interest in favour of the bank, in
such a case can RERA exercise powers under the Act. Neither the
statute so provides, nor it is canvassed before us by the
respondents that RERA Act has been given retrospective effect.
As is well settled, a statutory provision creating rights or
obligations is presumed to be prospective unless specifically or by
necessary implications it has been given retrospective effect.
Section 11 of RERA Act pertains to function and duties of the
promoter. Sub-section (4) of Section 11 requires the promoter to
perform several acts and obligations. Clause (h) of sub-section
(4) of Section 11 reads as under:-
"(h) after he executes an agreement for sale for
any apartment, plot or building, as the case may
be, not mortgage or create a charge on such
apartment, plot or building, as the case may be,
and if any such mortgage or charge is made or
created then notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, it shall
not affect the right and interest of the allottee who
has taken or agreed to take such apartment, plot
or building, as the case may be."
25. As per this provision thus after a promoter executes an
agreement for sale for any apartment, plot or building he shall
not mortgage or create a charge on such apartment, plot or
(50 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
building and if any such mortgage or charge is made or created
then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, it shall not affect the right and interest of the
allottee who has taken or agreed to take apartment, plot or
building, as the case may be. Perusal of this provision would
immediately make it clear that the same would be totally
unworkable in a case where transaction between the borrower
and the bank is completed before the introduction of RERA Act.
As per this provision the promoter is precluded from mortgaging
or creating any charge on apartment, plot or building with
respect to which he has executed an agreement for sale. If he
breaches this obligation, such mortgage or charge created shall
have no effect on the right and interest of the allottee. This
provision thus creates a new obligation and corresponding right in
favour of the allottee. Such provisions cannot have retrospective
effect. In any case as noted, enforcing any such obligation would
be wholly unworkable. It would reopen closed transactions
between the borrower and the lender. In our opinion therefore
RERA Act would have no applicability to the secured creditors
where such security interests have been created before
introduction of the Act.
26. Before concluding this issue we need to deal with two
decisions heavily relied upon by the respondents and the
conclusions noted above will have to be hedged with certain rider.
In case of Bikram Chatterji (supra), the Supreme Court did
apply RERA provisions to the transactions which were executed
prior to introduction of the Act. This was however on the basis
that there was large scale fraud committed by the promoters in
connivance with the financial institutions. This would be clear
(51 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
upon reading of the whole judgment and more particularly
paragraph 136 in which in the context of Section 11(4)(h) of
RERA Act it was observed that right and interest of the allottee
are safeguarded by virtue of the provisions contained in Section
11(4)(h) and even if the provision is held not applicable on the
ground that RERA came into force later, since there was no valid
mortgage as held by the Supreme Court it was incapable of
affecting the right or interest of the allottee. In essence thus the
Supreme Court having come to the conclusion that creation of
security interest itself was fraudulent, the charge was invalid and
therefore even if created before introduction of RERA Act, the
same would not affect the right and interest of the allottees in
terms of Section 11(4)(h) thereof. This would mean that in
absence of fraud or collusion the Act cannot be applied
retrospectively to the banks and financial institutions in whose
favour security interests have been created prior to the
enactment of the law.
27. Much reliance has also been placed in this context by the
Counsel for the respondents on the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers
Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this case, one of the questions raised was
with respect to applicability of RERA to the construction projects
which have commenced earlier. The question framed by the
Supreme Court for its consideration was whether the Act of 2016
is retrospective or retroactive in its operation and what will be its
legal consequence if tested on the anvil of the Constitution of
India. This question was answered in the context of its
applicability to the projects which had already commenced before
the Act was framed. The observations and the conclusions of the
(52 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
Supreme Court in this regard therefore cannot be adopted
straightaway when we are considering a situation which is
entirely different namely of the rights and interests of the
secured creditors which were created before the Act was enacted.
28. The last question surviving for our consideration is, does
RERA have the authority to issue any directions against a bank or
financial institution which claims security interest over the
properties which are subject matter of agreement between the
allottee and the developers. The term "allottee" has been defined
under Section 2(d) of RERA Act as to mean in relation to real
estate project the person to whom a plot, apartment or building
has been allotted sold or otherwise transferred by the promoter
and would include a person who subsequently acquires the said
allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include
a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case
may be, is given on rent. The term "promoter" is defined in
Section 2(zk) as under:-
"(zk) "promoter" means,--
(i) a person who constructs or causes to be
constructed an independent building or a building
consisting of apartments, or converts an existing
building or a part thereof into apartments, for the
purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to
other persons and includes his assignees; or
(ii) a person who develops land into a project,
whether or not the person also constructs structures
on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other
persons all or some of the plots in the said project,
whether with or without structures thereon; or
(iii) any development authority or any other public
body in respect of allottees of--
(a) buildings or apartments, as the case may
be, constructed by such authority or body on
lands owned by them or placed at their
disposal by the Government; or
(53 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
(b) plots owned by such authority or body or
placed at their disposal by the Government,
for the purpose of selling all or some of the
apartments or plots; or
(iv) an apex State level co-operative housing finance
society and a primary co-operative housing society
which constructs apartments or buildings for its
Members or in respect of the allottees of such
apartments or buildings; or
(v) any other person who acts himself as a builder,
coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or
by any other name or claims to be acting as the
holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the
land on which the building or apartment is
constructed or plot is developed for sale; or
(vi) such other person who constructs any building or
apartment for sale to the general public.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, where
the person who constructs or converts a building into
apartments or develops a plot for sale and the person
who sells apartments or plots are different person,
both of them shall be deemed to be the promoters
and shall be jointly liable as such for the functions
and responsibilities specified, under this Act or the
rules and regulations made thereunder;"
29. The term "real estate agent" has been defined in Section
2(zm) as to mean any person who negotiates or acts on behalf of
one person in a transaction of transfer of his plot, apartment or
building in a real estate project by way of sale with another person
and who receives remuneration or charge for the services so
rendered. Under sub-section (1) of Section 31, any aggrieved
person may file a complaint before RERA or before the
adjudicating officer for any violation or contravention of the
provisions of the Act or the rules and regulations against any
promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. The
complaint by an aggrieved person thus would be restricted to
being filed against any promoter allottee or real estate agent. It is
(54 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
in this context the definition of term "promoter" and its
interpretation assumes significance. We have reproduced the
entire definition of the term "promoter". Perusal of this provision
would show that the same is worded "as to mean" and therefore
pimafaci is to be seen as restrictive in nature. However various
clauses of Section 2(zk) would indicate the desire of the
legislature to define this term in an expansive manner. As per
Clause (i) of Section 2(zk) "promoter" means a person who
constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building or
a building consisting of apartments, or converts an existing
building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of
selling all or some of the apartments to other persons and
includes his assignees. By couching this clause in "means and
includes" language the definition of a term "promoter" is
extended by including within its fold not only a person who
constructs or causes construction of independent building but also
his assignees.
30. The term "assignee" has not been defined anywhere in the
Act. We would therefore have to interpret the term as it is
ordinarily understood in the legal parlance in the context of the
provisions of RERA Act. The Advance Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha
Aiyar expands the term "assignee" as to grant, to convey, to make
an assignment; to transfer or make over to another the right one
has in any object as in an estate. It further provides that an
assignment by act of parties may be an assignment either of
rights or of liabilities under a contract or as it is sometimes
expressed an assignment of benefit or the burden of the contract.
The rights and liabilities of either party to a contract may in
(55 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
certain circumstances be assigned by operation of law, for
example when a party dies or becomes bankrupt.
31. With this background we may refer to a relevant provision
under the SARFAESI Act. As is well known this Act defines the
term "security agreement" to mean an agreement, instrument or
any other document or arrangement under which security interest
is created in favour of secured creditor. The term "secured asset"
is defined as to mean the property in which security interest is
created. The term "secured creditor" has also been defined as to
the institution in whose favour security interest is created by any
borrower for repayment of any financial assistance.
32. Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act pertains to enforcement of
security interest. Under said Chapter sub-section (1) of Section 13
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69
and Section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, any security
interest created in favour of the secured creditor may be enforced
without the intervention of the Court or tribunal by such creditor
in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of
Section 13 envisages issuance of notice by the secured creditor to
a borrower whose asset has been classified as non-performing
asset. Such notice would require the borrower to discharge the
liability in full failing which the secured creditor would be entitled
to exercise or any of the rights under sub-section(4). In sub-
section (3) of Section 13 the notice referred to in sub-section (2)
has to contain details of amount payable by the borrower and the
secured asset intended to be enforced in the event of non-
payment of secured debts by the borrower. Sub-section (3) of
Section 13 envisages disposal of the objections by the borrower if
(56 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
raised in response to the notice under sub-section (2). Sub-
section (4) of Section 13 which is of importance to us reads as
under:-
"(4) in case of the borrower fails to discharge his
liability in full within the period specified in sub-section
(2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or
more of the following measures to recover his secured
debt, namely:-
(a) take possession of the secured assets
of the borrower including the right to transfer by
way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the
secured asset;
(b) take over the management of the
business of the borrower including the right to
transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for
realising the secured asset:
Provided that the right to transfer by way
of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised
only where the substantial part of the business
of the borrower is held as security for the debt:
Provided further that where the
management of whole, of the business or part of
the business is severable, the security creditor
shall take over the management of such
business of the borrower which is relatable to
the security or the debt;
(c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as
the manager), to manage the secured assets the
possession of which has been taken over by the
secured creditor;
(d) require at any time by notice in writing, any
person who has acquired any of the secured
assets from the borrower and from whom any
money is due or may become due to the
borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much
of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured
debt."
33. In terms of SARFAESI Act and particularly Section 13, once a
borrower is unable to repay the debt and the asset is classified as
non-performing asset, it is open for the secured creditor to
enforce the rights without intervention of the Court. After issuance
of notice under Section 13(2) and disposing of the objections of
(57 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
the borrower in terms of Section 13 (3A), a secured creditor could
proceed to take steps as envisaged in sub-section (4). These
measures which a secured creditor can take include taking
possession of the secured asset including right to transfer by way
of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; to
take over the management of business of the borrower including
the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for
realising the secured asset; appoint any person to manage the
secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by
the secured creditor and require at any time any person who has
acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from
whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower to
pay the secured creditor so much of the money as is sufficient to
pay secured debt.
34. Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (4) are all in the nature of
rights that a secured creditor can exercise which originally vest in
the borrower. Clause (d) on the other hand, is in the nature of a
garnishee enabling the secured creditor to recover the dues from a
person other than the borrower who has acquired any of the
secured assets and from whom any money is due or may become
due to the borrower.
35. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 13 vest
power in the secured creditor to take all steps as the borrower
himself could take in relation to the secured asset. Clause (d) goes
a step further and enables the bank to recover its dues directly
from a debtor or the borrower who has acquired any of the
secured assets. For all purposes thus the secured creditor steps in
(58 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
the shoes of the borrower in relation to the secured asset. This is
thus a case of assignment of rights of the borrower in the secured
creditor by operation of law. In other words the moment the bank
takes recourse to any of the measures under sub-section (4) of
Section 13, it triggers statutory assignment of right of the
borrower in the secured creditor. Till this stage arises the bank or
financial institutions in whose favour secured interest may have
been created may not be in isolation in absence of the borrower
be amenable to the jurisdiction of RERA. However the moment the
bank or the financial institution takes recourse to any of the
measures available in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the
SARFAESI Act, RERA authority would have jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint filed by an aggrieved person.
36. Our conclusions can thus be summarised as under:-
(i) Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2017 is not ultra vires the
Act or is otherwise not invalid.
(ii) The delegation of powers in the single member of RERA to
decide complaints filed under the Act even otherwise flows from
Section 81 of the Act and such delegation can be made in absence
of Regulation 9 also.
(iii) As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bikram
Chatterji (supra) in the event of conflict between RERA and
SARFAESI Act the provisions contained in RERA would prevail.
(iv) RERA would not apply in relation to the transaction between
the borrower and the banks and financial institutions in cases
where security interest has been created by mortgaging the
property prior to the introduction of the Act unless and until it is
(59 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
found that the creation of such mortgage or such transaction is
fraudulent or collusive.
(iv) RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by
an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the
bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
37. With these conclusions we would leave the parties to pursue
individually the cases before appropriate authorities. In some of
the petitions the petitioners have approached the High Court at a
stage where the authority has yet to pass final orders. These
proceedings have been stayed. In some cases as in case of Union
Bank of India, the petitioner has challenged the final order passed
by the authority. We would therefore divide our directions in two
parts. Wherever challenge is made to the pending proceedings,
the stay orders are lifted. If any of the petitioners have not filed
reply before the authority, they would have time upto 15.01.2022
to file such replies. Wherever the petitioners have challenged the
orders passed by the authority, they are relegated to the appellate
forum for which they would have time upto 15.01.2022 to file
their appeals. If such appeals are filed by such date, the same
shall be decided on merits without raising question of limitation.
38. In Civil Writ Petition Nos.11372/2019, 15503/2019 and
9154/2020 the petitioners had approached the High Court since
the appeals they have filed were not being heard by the Appellate
Tribunal since chairman and members were not appointed.
Learned Advocate General stated that such appointments have
been made which is also supported by the Counsel for the
petitioners. These petitions are disposed of to enable the
(60 of 60) [CW-13688/2021]
petitioners to pursue such appeals before the appellate forum on
merits.
39. With these observations, all petitions stand disposed of.
Pending applications if any also stand disposed of.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/N.GANDHI/-97-150, 84-94, 81-83, 95 & 6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
