Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr.
Case No.: MA No. 105 of 2025
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Coram: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) where the complaint discloses a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the expression “aggrieved person” occurring in Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 35 of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, is of wide amplitude. The Court held that merely because there is no written document evidencing the allotment of a real estate property or an agreement between the parties, RERA's jurisdiction cannot automatically be excluded.

The dispute arose out of a complaint filed by Y.P. Goel and Associates, alleging that Fortune Resources and Properties LLP had entered into an oral arrangement for allotment and sale of Shop No. J-03, measuring 1,280 sq. ft., at Rama World, High Street, Swarn Bhoomi, Raipur, for a consideration of ₹75 lakh.

The complainant alleged that it had paid ₹5 lakh on December 31, 2020, ₹10 lakh on February 3, 2021 and a further ₹10 lakh on September 6, 2022 towards the proposed transaction. It was further alleged that despite the payments, possession of the shop was not handed over and no sale deed was executed. According to the complainant, the amount of ₹25 lakh was ultimately returned after approximately three years.

After a legal notice was issued on April 5, 2024, Fortune Resources denied the existence of any oral agreement and disputed the alleged allotment of the shop.

RERA, by its order dated July 31, 2024, dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties and that the material on record did not clearly establish payment of sale consideration in respect of the alleged transaction. RERA consequently held that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction under the RERA Act.

The complainant thereafter approached the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). By order dated April 4, 2025, the Tribunal set aside RERA's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that an oral agreement could be examined within the RERA framework and that the complainant could fall within the expression “aggrieved person”.

Fortune Resources challenged the REAT's order before the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act. It contended that mere payment or deposit of money could not confer the status of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act. According to the appellant, there had to be an application or request for allotment, its acceptance by the promoter and a consequential allotment.

The High Court, however, found that RERA had considered the matter primarily from the perspective of the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) without adequately considering the scope of Section 31, which enables an aggrieved person to approach the Authority in respect of a violation or contravention of the Act, rules or regulations.

The Court noted that the pleadings disclosed a transaction involving payment of money in connection with the alleged allotment and sale of the shop. It observed that the existence and nature of such transaction required appropriate consideration and could not be rejected merely because there was no written allotment document or agreement.

The Court also noted that RERA's order did not indicate whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, including the calling for relevant documents or evidence, had been followed. According to the Court, the Authority ought to have undertaken the requisite enquiry before reaching a conclusion on the complaint.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeal. It directed RERA to reconsider and decide the complaint in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 55 of the REAT's order and in accordance with law.

Key Takeaway

The judgment reiterates that the absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale is not, by itself, sufficient to exclude RERA's jurisdiction. Where the pleadings disclose a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset, the Authority must examine the material and conduct the appropriate enquiry before determining whether the complainant is entitled to relief under the RERA Act.

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 decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court in the 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.. 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:-

“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.”

Grant of relief of compensation can only be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer,if compensation is provided as a part of the multiple reliefs, the complaints have to be placed before the adjudicating officer.

 In the Matter of Sameer Mahawar Vs. MG Housing Pvt. Ltd. Complaint no. appeal no. 6/2018 decided on 02.05.2019  before Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In this order after taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 11(4), 12, 14, 18, 19, 31, 34(f),  37, 38 and 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called the Act) and rule 28 & 29 of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called the rules). The Honourable Appellate tribunal added that. “ Thus, as a result of our aforesaid discussions, we conclude and sum up our considered view in following manner :-

(i) That violations and causes of actions arising out of the same bundle of facts/rights giving rise to the multiple reliefs shall be placed before one and the same forum for adjudication in order to avoid the conflicting findings. 

(ii) The complaints for the grant of relief of compensation can only be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer as per the provisions of section 71 of the Act and rule 29 of the Rules. 

(iii) Similarly, if compensation is provided as a part of the multiple reliefs alongwith refund/return of investment with interest flowing from the same violation/violations and causes of action, the complaints have to be placed before the adjudicating officer exercising the powers under 3 Sections 31, 71(1) read with rule 29 of the Rules as only the adjudicating officer is competent to deal with the relief of compensation.”

Land Owners can’t be Punished in Joint Ventures – Tamil Nadu RERA

 In a complaint filed by Shankari Sundararaman (“Complainant”) against Sree Vardhana Builders Private Limited (“Company”), 265 of 2020 its directors and landowners of the Project named ‘Vardhana Constellation’ in Coimbatore, for claiming refund of amounts paid towards the purchase of the flat under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“Act”), the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai (“TNRERA”) stated that since directors are actively involved in the affairs of the Company and have received money and corresponded with the Complainant, they would be liable for violations under Section 69 the Act which deals with offences by companies and people responsible for the conduct/business of the company. 

However, with respect to landowners of the project site (being the other respondents), TNRERA stated that the landowners had just entered into joint venture agreements and had executed general power of attorney with the Company. The sale deeds for the undivided share of land was only executed by the Company and not the landowners. 

Further, it was stated that it was the Company that had launched the project and had entered into various agreements with the Complainant for construction and delivery of the constructed apartment on receiving consideration. 

Henceforth, the landowners would not come under the definition of “promoter” and only the Company would fall under the definition of “promoter” to be made liable for contravention under Section 31 read with Section 71 of the Act