E-Paper
‘Refund, penalty powers lie with RERA, not adjudicating officer’
The Punjab and Haryana high court said for complaints of refund of the amount, delayed delivery of possession and penalty, etc the adjudicating authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, will be the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and not the adjudicating officer
The Punjab and Haryana high court said for complaints of refund of the amount, delayed delivery of possession and penalty, etc the adjudicating authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, will be the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and not the adjudicating officer.
The high court bench of justice TS Dhindsa and justice Vinod Bhardwaj was dealing with a clutch of petitions filed by developers from Haryana. The HC said the legislature intent of the law demonstrates that the adjudicating officer has to deal with issues of adjudging compensation and award of interest thereupon.
The HC was dealing with the petitions in which the developers had raised issues with regard to the adjudicating authority in case of complaints of delay, penalty and deciding on compensation, etc against the developers and powers of the RERA authority and adjudicating officer, established under the RERA law.
The second issue was whether the HC can intervene to waive off pre-deposit condition for an appeal before tribunal against the RERA orders, by a developer.
The RERA tribunal hears the appeal of a builder against RERA decision only if interest amount decided is deposited with the tribunal by the developer in question.
The HC said the compensatory relief under the law has been kept separate and distinct and accrues in the event of occurrence of certain prerequisites. The determination in that case has to be done by the adjudicating officer, under the RERA law.
The RERA authority would have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund of the amount and interest on the refund amount as well as for payment of interest on delayed delivery of possession and/or penalty and interest. The jurisdiction in such matters would not be with the adjudicating officer,it said.
As of power of the HC to intervene in the cases of pre-deposits, the court said a statutory provision or enactment cannot oust the jurisdiction conferred upon the HC by the Constitution of India. However, as a part of the fulfilment of the statutory object, it is only desirable that the high court exercises judicial restraint while invoking its powers.
“The legislature has consciously provided for a mandatory pre-deposit without exceptions in order to ensure due completion of projects to avoid undue appeals,” it said, adding that a developer seeking indulgence of the HC to seek exemption from statutory mandate must establish that the discharge of statutory obligation would be ‘onerous’ and that the court must come to the rescue out of statutory mandate.
