1 2025:CGHC:36169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3700 of 2025 1 - M/s Purandar Promoters And Developers Private Limited, Through Its Director Mr. Rohit Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Pankaj Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Mission Hospital Road, Behind Brilliant Public School, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Having Registered Address At Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Aurhtority, Through Its Registrar, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s);- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed in the case No. M-COM-2024-02582 by Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority; 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the order dated 24.02.2025 passed in the case No. M- COM-2024-02582 by the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority; Or To Kindly set aside the order dated 08.01.2025 and 24.02.2025 passed in the case No. M-COM-2024- 02582 by the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority and remand the matter back before the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority with a Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.30 11:25:56 +0530 2 direction to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present its submission before the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority in relation to alleged non- compliance of the provisions of the Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development ) Act 2016; 10.3 To direct the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority to not act in accordance with the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory in Case No. M-COM-2024-02582 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Suo Moto Complaint M-COM-2024-02582 wherein, the Ld. RERA has imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one crore only) on the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice and providing the petitioner any opportunity of prior hearing. Further, vide impugned order dated 24.02.2025, the Ld. RERA has directed the Adjudicating Officer to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- without giving opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions with respect to erroneous penalty imposed on it. 4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In the case of Ramprastha Developers (P.) Ltd. V. State of Haryana reported in CWP 24591-2024 it has been held as under:- The Respondent Authority and the 3 complainants argued that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. While deciding the writ petition the Hon'ble High Court observed that RERA's jurisdiction over a complaint is primarily based on Section 31, rather than on technical omissions related to Section 3(1) i.e. registration of the project or its second proviso i.e. direction of the competent authority for registration of the project and therefore non-issuance of the. registration certificate does not restrict the rights of the home buyers, to access the remedy contemplated under the RERA Act. Further, the Hon'ble High Court observe that determination of RERA's jurisdiction over a complaint is primarily based on Section 31. Since, Section 31 grants RERA the power to adjudicate complaints related to any violations of the Act, Section 3(1) and its proviso do not define or limit RERA's jurisdiction. Further, while deciding the issue related to filing of the complaint by the home buyer, the Hon'ble High Court analysed the definition of promoter and real estate project as defined under Section 2(zk) and Section 2(zn) of the RERA Act. The Hon'ble High Court observed that when the broad statutory definitions of "promoter" and "real estate project" are read together with Section 31 of the RERA Act, it becomes clear that any aggrieved person has the statutory right to file a complaint before RERA against a promoter, allottee, or real estate agent for any violation of the Act or its rules. Non-registration of the project under RERA, or the absence of any order under the second proviso of Section 3(1) of the RERA Act, is irrelevant in determining the validity of the complaints filed by the allottees. The allottees, as aggrieved parties, are fully entitled to seek relief against the alleged misconduct of the promoter. Furthermore, Section 37 of the RERA Act grants broad jurisdiction to RERA authorities, allowing them to issue necessary directions from time to time to promoters, allottees, or real estate agents in order to ensure compliance with the Act, its rules, and 4 regulations. Further, the Hon'ble High Court observed that definition of 'allottee' under RERA includes not just current allottees in ongoing projects but also potential and prospective allottees in future projects. A promise of allotment in future projects to be undertaken by the developer, the complainant qualifies as an allottee and therefore he has legitimate right to seek relief under RERA, even though the project was not yet launched. In respect of the issue related to the alternate remedy of filing the appeal, the Hon'ble High Court observed that since RERA had valid jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, the proper legal course for the petitioners is to pursue an appeal under the available statutory framework. Conclusion: By this judgement, the Hon'ble High Court affirms that RERA has jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints even for unregistered projects where homebuyers had made payments and were awaiting possession. As per provision of section 31 of the RERA Act, anyaggrieved person has the statutory right to file a complaint before RERA against a promoter, allottee, or real estate agent for any violation of the Act or its rules. The allottees, as aggrieved parties, are fully entitled to seek relief against the alleged misconduct of the promoter. Allottee under RERA includes not just current allottees in ongoing projects but also potential and prospectiveallottees in future projects and therefore promise of allotment in future projects to be undertaken by the developer, the complainant qualifies as an allottee and has legitimate right to seek relief under RERA, even though the project was not yet launched. The writ petition is deemed not maintainable, as the alternative remedy under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act to appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) is available. 7. Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal provides that Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order 5 made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the matter can be well considered by the Appellant Tribunal which has been conferred with the power of looking into all issues of fact and law and the alternative remedy is available to the present petitioner under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti