Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010087132025 2025:GAU-AS:6389 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2226/2025 MANJITA KALITA CHOWDHURY W/O-SRI ANUSHIK CHOWDHURY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S AARVEE ASSOCIATES HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RUKMINIGAON, OPP HDFC BANK, HOUSE NO.86, P.O-KHANAPARA, P.S DISPUR, DIST-KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM-781022 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT. DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITIAN LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781036 3:THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER BAKIJAI BRANCH KAMRUP METROPOLITIAN DISTRICT GUWAHATI-781036 4:THE REGISTRAR REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY JAWAHAR NAGAR N.H 27 KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781022 5:MADHURIYA BHATTACHARAYA R/O-H/NO-17 Page No.# 2/7 NAMGHAR PATH NEAR MODERN ENGLISH SCHOOL ODALBAKRA GUWAHATI-781034 6:BINITA SARMA R/O-H/NO-18 NAMGHAR PATH NEAR MODERN ENGLISH SCHOOL ODALBAKRA GUWAHATI-78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI, MR B ISLAM,MR. S ALI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS S PATOWARY(R-5,6),MR R SINGHA (R-5,6) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 21.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. B Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. R Singha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 & 6. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by a proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 3 to sell a landed property belonging to the petitioner allegedly jointly. On 27.03.2025, the respondent no. 3 has issued a Proclamation of Sale under the provisions of Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 for auction sale of the landed property to recover a sum of Rs. 46,32,835/-. 3. From the materials on records, it can be noticed that Page No.# 3/7 the respondent nos. 5 & 6 as complainants, had lodged a complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Assam under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 against the petitioner, who is the owner of M/s Aarvee Associate. In the complaint, the complainants (the respondent no. 5 & the respondent no. 6) had alleged that in November, 2013, they entered into an agreement with the petitioner for handing over of a residential apartment. As per the agreement, the residential apartment was to be handed over within a period of three years. As the complainants had deposited 90% (approx.) of the agreed consideration as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and even after elapse of eight years, the residential apartment was not handed over, the complainants sought a nos. of reliefs before the RERA, Assam. The said complaint was registered as Case no. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2021/48 and after hearing the parties including the petitioner, the RERA, Assam passed an Order on 27.01.2023 directing inter-alia to the petitioner as the promoter that either to complete all the pending works and hand over the completed apartment to the complainants within a period of forty-five days from 27.01.2023 or in case of failure, to return the principal amount with applicable interest as per the provisions of the Assam Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 within a period of forty-five days. As the petitioner, as developer/opposite party in Case no. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2021/48, failed to comply with any of the directions made in the Order dated 27.01.2023, a certificate stood Page No.# 4/7 issued by the RERA, Assam to the respondent no. 2 to recover the sum of Rs. 46,32,835/-. On the basis of the said certificate, a case, Bakijai Case no. 20/2023 (Misc.) has been registered against the petitioner as the certificate debtor and in the said proceeding, notice stood issued to the petitioner. In the course of the said proceeding, the impugned Proclamation of Sale notice has been issued by the respondent no. 3 on 27.03.2025. 4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landed property in respect of which the Proclamation of Sale notice has been issued by the respondent no. 3 on 27.03.2025 is a joint property where the petitioner is a co- sharer and as such, there is infirmity in the Proclamation of Sale notice. He has further submitted that the auction sale has been scheduled on 30.04.2025. It is his further submission that the market value of the landed property, sought to be auctioned, is much higher than the certificate amount of Rs. 46,32,835/-. 5. Mr. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 has submitted that from the materials on record, it is discernible that there were persistent defaults on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the Order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the RERA, Assam has attained finality as no appeal has been preferred against the said Order before the appellate authority. In such view of the matter, issuance of the certificate was inevitable. If any interference is made to the Proclamation of Sale, prejudice is likely to be suffered by the complainants who have been suffering losses due to the Page No.# 5/7 acts of the petitioner since 2013 6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 & 6 by producing an order dated 28.03.2025, passed in WP(C) No.5446/2024, preferred by the present respondent Nos.5 & 6 contends that the petitioner is aware of such order passed, however, such vital materials facts have been withdrawn. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record including the order dated 28.03.2025 passed in WP(C) 5446/2024. 8. WP(C) 5446/2024 was filed by the respondent Nos.5 & 6 with a grievance that Bakijai Officer-Cum- Additional Deputy Commissioner, (herein after referred to as the Bakijai Officer), Kamrup (M) is sitting over the Bakijai proceeding initiated on the basis of a certificate issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). 9. It is also seen that in the proceeding of the aforesaid writ petition that the Certificate Officer initiated the proceeding by issuing notice of proclamation in Form 20. Proclamation of sale in Form 21 was also issued and Nazir was directed to cause proclamation of sale in Form 22 and accordingly in view of the aforesaid, the writ petition was closed. 10. Be that as it may, in the present proceeding, taking note of the fact that certificate has already been issued and proclamation of sale has also been made, this court under its order dated 30.04.2025 granted a limited interim protection to the petitioner by providing that the auction sale proceeding initiated Page No.# 6/7 by the proclamation of sale notice dated 27.03.2025 shall proceed, but the final order on the sale shall not be issued till the returnable date. Such protection was subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.20 lakhs by the petitioner before the respondent No.3, within a period of 10 days from 30.04.2025. 11. It was further provided in the order that on the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid sum of Rs.20 lakhs within ten days from 30.04.2025, the interim order shall automatically stands vacated without any further reference and the respondent No.3 would be at liberty to proceed further with the auction sale proceeding. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to honor such condition and therefore, the respondent No.3 is at liberty to proceed with the auction sale in terms of proclamation of sale notice dated 27.03.2025. 13. On the merit also, this court is of the opinion that the order of RERA Assam dated 27.01.2023 is not under challenge in the present proceeding based on which, such certificate was issued. Even otherwise, the order dated 27.01.2023 is an appealable order and in absence of challenge to such an order in an appeal, this court cannot interfere in exercise of its power of judicial review, the certificate in question which is a consequence of order dated 27.01.2023. 14. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, inasmuch as the order dated 27.01.2023 was passed in presence of the present writ petitioner and such order is Page No.# 7/7 not put to challenge by preferring appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant