RERA Authority retains jurisdiction over unregistered projects under Section 31, writ petition dismissed for alternative remedy

The HC dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable due to availability of alternative appellate remedy under RERA Act. The court held that RERA Authority retains jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints against promoters even when projects are not registered under Section 3 of RERA Act. The jurisdictional competence of RERA Authority stems from Section 31 which provides statutory remedy to aggrieved persons, rather than from compliance requirements under Section 3. Non-registration of the project does not invalidate RERA Authority's jurisdiction or render its proceedings coram non judice. The petition was dismissed confirming RERA's adjudicatory powers.

---

---

The judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court addresses a writ petition challenging an order by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Gurugram. The petitioners argued that the RERA lacked jurisdiction over their complaints due to non-compliance with certain provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The respondents contended that the petitioners had an alternative remedy through an appeal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, thus rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.

Issues Presented and Considered:

The core issues considered by the Court were:

• Whether the writ petition was maintainable given the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the RERA Act.
• Whether the RERA Authority had jurisdiction over the complaints filed against the petitioners.
• Whether the non-registration of the real estate project under Section 3 of the RERA Act invalidated the RERA Authority's jurisdiction.
• Whether the petitioners' arguments regarding jurisdictional defects and coram non judice were valid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:

The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy through an appeal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. The Court noted that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially in cases involving jurisdictional errors. However, the Court emphasized that the petitioners should have pursued the statutory remedy first.

2. Jurisdiction of the RERA Authority:

The petitioners contended that the RERA Authority lacked jurisdiction due to non-registration of the project under Section 3 of the RERA Act. The Court examined Section 3, which mandates prior registration of real estate projects with the RERA Authority. The Court also considered Section 31, which allows any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Authority for violations of the Act.

The Court found that the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority is not solely dependent on the registration status of the project. The statutory framework under Section 31 provides a mechanism for aggrieved parties to seek redress for violations, irrespective of registration compliance. The Court held that the RERA Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints filed by the respondents.

3. Non-registration and Jurisdictional Defects:

The petitioners argued that the lack of project registration under Section 3 rendered the RERA Authority's actions coram non judice. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the statutory provisions must be read harmoniously. The Court emphasized that the RERA Act's purpose is to protect homebuyers and ensure accountability in the real estate sector. The non-registration of the project did not negate the RERA Authority's jurisdiction to hear complaints.

Significant Holdings:

• The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the RERA Act.
• The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority to adjudicate complaints, even in the absence of project registration under Section 3.
• The Court emphasized the statutory right of aggrieved persons to file complaints under Section 31, which supports the RERA Authority's jurisdiction.
• The Court concluded that the non-registration of the project did not invalidate the RERA Authority's jurisdiction or render its actions coram non judice.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. If the appeal is time-barred, the appellate body is instructed to consider an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and proceed accordingly.

---