The Authority is not bound by the declaration of the Promoter under section 4(2)(1)(c),Authority is not powerless if the promoter’s declaration is arbitrary and unreasonable.Promoter cannot be given free run in deciding time for completion of a project thereby adversely impacting the interest of the prospective Allottees.

 In the Matter of M/s. Parador Promoters Amritsar Private Limited vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Complaint no.Appeal no. 113 of 2019 decided on 03.07.2020 before Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

Facts of the case: 

• The Promoter obtained license on 13.06.2019 to develop a residential colony within a period of 5 years. 

• The period commenced from 13.06.2019 and ended on 12.06.2024 with a stipulation that the development work must be completed within the said period. 

• The Promoter applied to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab for registration of the project. Order passed by Punjab Authority: 

• The Authority accepted the registration of the project but allowed the timeline for completion of the project up to 12.06.2023 i.e a period of 4 years instead of 5 years. 

• The Punjab Authority observed that even though the license to develop the colony is valid up to 12.06.2024, the license of the Promoter is valid only up to 19.12.2022 . Secondly, though Change of land use is for 93.265 Acres, only 70.264 Acres is proposed to be developed in Phase I. Balance 23.001 Acre is proposed in Phase 2. Since the Promoter is not taking up the entire Group Housing in one phase, the date of completion should be 12.06.2023.

• Aggrieved by the said order of the Authority, the Promoter filed appeal before the Punjab RERA Appellate Tribunal. 

Issue before Appellate Tribunal: 

•     Whether the Act entitles the Authority to reduce the completion period of the project while registering the project? 

Promoter’s contentions: 

1. Promoter relied on section 5(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It challenged the ability of the RERA authority to vary the period applied by the promoter in the application. 

2. Reference was also made to section 6 of the RERA Act stating that a license granted to the Promoter for 5 years could not have been varied to its disadvantage while registering the project. It necessarily had to be commensurate with the period prescribed in the license. Any other interpretation would render the provision of section 6 of the Act illusory. 

3. Promoter claimed that it has now been deprived of the right to seek extension which had it not been restricted to 4 years 1 2018 (1) ABR 558 by the Authority, would have given the Promoter 6 years by including the extended period of one year. 

4. Referring to Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India 1 , it stated that the observations of this judgment can only be applied to ongoing projects. 

5. Promoter lastly contended that no reasoning was given by the Authority while reducing the period and hence decision has to be revisited. Authority’s contentions: 

The Authority opposed the Promoter’s appeal stating: 

1. Under Section 18 of the Act the Authority may, based on facts of each case and for reasons recorded in writing, extend the registration granted to a project. 

2. That extension of registration is not a matter of right but it is dependent on circumstances that the Promoter has to establish to be beyond his control i.e due to force majeure.

3. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India (supra) holding that in case the promoter mentions unreasonable period to complete construction, certainly the authority would not register such an application of the promoter, taking into consideration the facts of each case. 

Verdict of Appellate Tribunal: 

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of Authority in reducing the period of completion of project and dismissed the appeal of the Promoter. It observed that:

(i) The Authority is not bound by the declaration of the Promoter under section 4(2)(1)(c). It placed reliance on Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India (Supra) and stated that Authority is not powerless if the promoter’s declaration is arbitrary and unreasonable. Promoter cannot be given free run in deciding time for completion of a project thereby adversely impacting the interest of the prospective Allottees. 

(ii) The Tribunal rejected the Promoter’s contention that the observation of the judgement of Neelkamal case is only applicable to the ongoing project. The tribunal stated that no such distinction manifests from the provisions of Act or the observation of the judgment. 

(iii) The RERA Act does not specifically say that the period of license and the declaration made by the Promoter in terms of section 4(2)(1)(c) have to be coterminous. 

(iv) The Tribunal held that the one-line reason given by the authority for reducing the time period is sufficient. Merely because it is not set out in detail cannot ipso facto be a ground to hold it a non-speaking order.

x

The complaints under Section 12 were thus held to be required to be filed only before the Adjudicating Officer, being the authority empowered to grant compensation under the Act

 In the Matter of Sandeep Mann vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab and Anr. Complaint no. Appeal No. 53 of 2018 decided on 27.02.2019 before  Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

The issue that arose in the batch matter of fifteen appeals was as to the forum (as between the Real Estate Regulatory Authority constituted under Section 20, and the Adjudicating Officer appointed under Section 71) before which a person aggrieved by violations and contraventions enumerated in Section 11(5), 12, 14(3), 18(1), 18(2), 18(3), 19(4) and 19(7) of the RERA, 2016 or the agreement for sale, praying for reliefs of refund, return of investment including compensation, setting aside of order of cancellation of allotment, compensation, compensation and interest, compensation or interest and interest as a separate relief may file a complaint.The question arose on account of two circulars issued by the Authority declaring that complaints for compensation shall be filed before and adjudged by the Adjudicating Officer whereas all other complaints shall be filed before and adjudicated by the Authority. Following these circulars, one set of orders came to be passed by the Adjudicating Officer, whereby the complaints claiming relief of refund, interest and compensation came to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Another set of orders were those which the Authority passed, rejecting the complaints which alleged

violations and contraventions of the Act, while granting liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer. All these orders were subject matter of the appeal decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

The Appellate Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act came to the conclusion that:

(i) In case of Section 11(5), no difficulty arose, in view of the fact that the said provision specifically mentioned the Authority as the forum, before which a complaint could be filed by a complainant aggrieved by cancellation of allotment by the promoter;

 

(ii) Section 12 provides for compensation on account of false advertisement, and also for refund of investment along with interest, in case of a complainant who desires to withdraw from the project on account of false advertisement. The nature of relief being different, the circulars issued by the Authority provided for adjudication of the complaint based on the same cause of action (viz., false advertisement) by two different authorities (viz., the Adjudicating Officer for compensation and the Authority for refund of investment). The Appellate Tribunal held this mechanism to be flawed, inter alia, on account of the fact that it raised the possibility of differing orders being passed by the two authorities. Further, the cause of action being the same, the fact that the complainant had a choice of relying would not change the nature of the proceedings. The basis of the proceedings was adjudication of the proof of default. The complaints under Section 12 were thus held to be required to be filed only before the Adjudicating Officer, being the authority empowered to grant compensation under the Act;

(iii) Section 14(3), like Section 11(3), was held not to pose any problem on account of the fact that the use of the words ‘shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act’ could only mean that the appropriate forum was the Adjudicating Officer, viz., the authority empowered to award compensation under the Act;

(iv) Section 18(1), the cause of action for which is the inability of the promoter to give possession due to any of the reasons specified therein, provides an option to the buyer to withdraw from the project and seek return of investment with interest including compensation in the manner prescribed in the Act, thereby meaning that the Adjudicating Officer shall have power to adjudicate the complaint. In a case covered by the proviso, however, viz., one where return of investment is not sought and the allottee is entitled to interest till possession, the appropriate forum was the Authority; (v) Sections 18(2) and (3) provide for compensation in terms of the Act for the default of the promoter for the reasons specified therein, and therefore the appropriate forum was the Adjudicating Officer, it was held by the Appellate Tribunal;

(vi) A complaint under Section 19(4), which made a reference to award of compensation, was held to be required to be placed before the Adjudicating Officer, while one under Section 19(7), which imposed a liability upon the allottee to pay interest on delayed payments to the promoter, was required to be filed before the Authority.

Based on the above findings, the appeals came to be allowed. The Appellate Tribunal did however clarify that the decision of the Tribunal was not to apply to matters which had attained finality. The pending complaints/ applications were to be transferred to the appropriate forum as per the findings set out above.

The Complete order can be accessed at https://rera.punjab.gov.in/pdf/OrdersJudgementsPbAT/20190405PbATAppealNo11to56of2018.pdf

in the absence of any pleadings or material placed on record for award of compensation on account of mental agony, compensation ought not to have been awarded.

 In the Matter of Estate Officer vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab and Anr. Complaint no. Appeal No. 65 of 2019 decided on 01.07.2019 before Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In this case, the RERA Appellate Tribunal was called upon to examine the correctness of an order of the Adjudicating Officer, vide which compensation had been awarded under Section 72 of the Act on account of two heads, viz., mental agony and litigation expenses. While passing the Order for compensation, the Adjudicating Officer had opined that since the Act did not define the term compensation, and had thought fit to draw upon the scheme of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for settling the claims for compensation. 

The Appellate Tribunal held:

(i) The objects and reasons in the matter of award of compensation under those enactments acts have no connection even remotely with the award of compensation under the RERA and to draw a corollary from the said enactments for considering the award of compensation was wrong and illegal;

(ii) Section 72 of the Act operates a self contained code for consideration of the factors to be taken into account while deciding the quantum of compensation. In support of this proposition, the Tribunal also relied on the previous decision in the same matter, wherein it had been concluded by reference to Section 72(d) that the factors enumerated in the said provision were not exhaustive;

(iii) that in the absence of any pleadings or material placed on record for award of compensation on account of mental agony, compensation sought not to have been awarded. It was found that in order to support the plea of compensation, only a bald statement had been made and no material was placed on record to support the case of loss suffered on account of interest paid for bank loan availed. The Tribunal also relied on Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (2) SCC 111, for the proposition that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. 

The award of compensation on account of litigation expenses was upheld, while that on account of mental agony was set aside.