Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36034-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42613 of 2024 Petitioner :- Harendra Kumar Roy And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Afzal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Petitioners are home buyers. They approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) raising complaint against the builder under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Certain orders in favour of the petitioners were passed. These orders, however, were not complied and the execution application was kept pending. During pendency of the execution application the builder i.e. respondent no. 4 has cancelled the petitioners' allotment on the ground that there was default on part of the petitioners in depositing the amount as per the allotment order. Counsel for the petitioners argues that once a complaint had already been raised before the RERA and orders were passed against the builder, there was no occasion for the builder to have cancelled the allotment. It is also submitted that RERA has acted arbitrarily in not executing the orders passed earlier by it against the builder. Taking note of such contention, this Court intervened and notices were issued to the builder. A direction was also issued that all orders passed by the RERA Authority would be placed on record. Compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of RERA annexing order passed by the Member, RERA, dated 30.01.2025 as well as recovery certificate issued under Section 40 to the District Magistrate for its enforcement against the builder. In view of the stand so taken by the respondent RERA, we find that no further grievance survives for the petitioners. Since issues are otherwise pending before the RERA and orders in favour of the petitioners has already been passed, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation that grievance of the petitioners, noticed above, shall be dealt with by the respondent RERA and further action as may be statutorily required would be undertaken after due notice to the fourth respondent. It goes without saying that no third party rights would be created in respect of the property in question during pendency of the proceedings before the RERA. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Ranjeet Sahu Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad