Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3667 (GAU)

Amina Begum v. Asom Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.

2025-08-06

Manojit Bhuyan

body2025
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. (Chairperson) 1. All the 3 (three) appeals involve the same real estate project called "Orchid Residency", located at Panch Ali, A.T. Road, Dibrugarh Town, in the district of Dibrugarh. Whereas REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025 and REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 07 of 2025 are filed by the same set of land owners, the REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 08 of 2025 is filed by one of the home-buyers of "Orchid Residency". In all the three appeals the primary respondent is the same, being the Promoter/Builder i.e. M/s Asom Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. The REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025 is preferred against the order dated 07.01.2025 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam (in short, the RERA) passed in Case No. RERA/ASSAM/Reg/Notice/2023/42, which is a suo-moto case initiated by the RERA against the Respondent/Promoter i.e. M/s Asom Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. for not registering the project "Orchid Residency", thereby violating Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act). The other two appeals i.e. REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 07 of 2025 and REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 08 of 2025 have been filed calling in question the identical orders dated 18.02.2025, passed independently by the RERA in Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2022/37 and Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2022/36 respectively. By the order dated 07.01.2025 the suo-moto case was dropped by holding that the Respondent/Promoter was not liable to get the real estate project "Orchid Residency" registered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. By the subsequent order(s) dated 18.02.2025, the complaint cases filed by (i) Mrs Amina Begum and others and (ii) Dr. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah, were disposed of by holding that the complaints made before the Regulatory Authority cannot be entertained as the same were not maintainable in view of the order dated 07.01.2025, whereby it was decided that the Respondent/Promoter was not liable for getting the project "Orchid Residency" registered in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. 2. As both the impugned orders dated 07.01.2025 and 18.02.2025 are interrelated, in that, the subsequent order dated 18.02.2025 having been passed on the basis of the decision rendered in the order dated 07.01.2025, as such, all the three appeals are taken up together for disposal by passing a common judgment and order. 2. As both the impugned orders dated 07.01.2025 and 18.02.2025 are interrelated, in that, the subsequent order dated 18.02.2025 having been passed on the basis of the decision rendered in the order dated 07.01.2025, as such, all the three appeals are taken up together for disposal by passing a common judgment and order. First, the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed in the suo-moto case is taken up for decision and, subject to the outcome thereof on the question of requirement or non-requirement of registration of the project in terms of Section 3 of the Act, further consideration will follow to decide on the legality and validity of the subsequent impugned order(s) dated 18.02.2025. 3. Having due regard to the primary issues involved, that is, on the necessity of registration of the project or not as well as on the maintainability of the complaint cases, certain dates, as borne out of records, related to the project and which has direct bearing on the final outcome of the appeals, must be taken note of. On 06.05.2013 the land-owners and the Respondent/Promoter entered into a Land Development Agreement, mutually agreeing upon construction of the real estate project on the land in question and allotment of share of flats in favour of the land-owners. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent/Promoter applied and obtained the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for construction of the project from the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board on 19.07.2013, followed by issuance of a fresh NOC on 13.03.2014, based on the modified drawings so submitted to erect/re-erect/add to or make alteration in the building. The Respondent/Promoter submitted application for Occupancy Certificate to Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board on 10.03.2016, enclosing therewith copies of the building completion certificates dated 08.03.2016 of the Architect/Construction Engineer/Structural Engineer who had supervised the construction in the prescribed Form Nos. 10, 11 and 12 appended to the State legislation applicable to the instant case, namely, The Assam Notified Urban Areas (Other Than Guwahati) Building Rules, 2014 (in short, the Building Rules). The date of making application for Occupancy Certificate i.e. 10.03.2016 would play a pivotal role for deciding the appeals. 4. 10, 11 and 12 appended to the State legislation applicable to the instant case, namely, The Assam Notified Urban Areas (Other Than Guwahati) Building Rules, 2014 (in short, the Building Rules). The date of making application for Occupancy Certificate i.e. 10.03.2016 would play a pivotal role for deciding the appeals. 4. First to consider is the issue as to whether the real estate project in question i.e. "Orchid Residency" required registration with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act or could claim exemption from registration in view of the provisions under clause (b), sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. Pertinent to note, the Act was put into force with effect from 01.05.2016 with regard to sections 2, 20 to 39, 41 to 58, 71 to 78 and 81 to 92, while the rest of the sections were put into force with effect from 01.05.2017. Relevant to note, Section 3 of the Act was notified and came into force with effect from 01.05.2017 vide State Notification No. S.O.1216 (E) dated 19.04.2017. As there is no dispute to the fact that construction of "Orchid Residency" commenced prior to the Act or Section 3 thereof coming into force, it would first be essential to decide whether the project was an ongoing project on the date of commencement of the Act and for which the completion certificate had not been issued. If it was an ongoing project, in that event the Promoter was statutorily required under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act to have made application to the RERA for registration of the project within the period specified therein, failing which penalty under Section 59 of the Act was attracted. 5. What is the meaning of the expression "projects that are ongoing" or ongoing projects in the spirit of the Act and the Assam Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) and the meaning of the expression "completion certificate" employed both in the first proviso to sub-section (1) as well as in clause (b), sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, in so far as the State of Assam is concerned, the same may be looked into. As regards the expression "projects that are ongoing" or ongoing projects, the same was discussed in the judgment dated 07.11.2022, rendered by this Tribunal in the case of RDB Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Another (REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 12 of 2023), reported in 2024 (2) GLT (REAT) 268. It was held that although the said expression is not defined under the Act, however, its meaning can be gathered from the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act to mean real estate projects that were going on/underway on the date of commencement of the Act and for which the completion certificate of the said real estate project had not been issued. The Promoter of the real estate project, in that event, was mandatorily required to have made application to the concerned Real Estate Regulatory Authority for registration of the said ongoing project within a period of three months next from the date of commencement of the Act. It was further held that the meaning of the expression can also be gathered from the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules to mean all ongoing projects which had not received "occupancy certificate" on the date of issue of the Notification for commencement of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act (i.e. 01.05.2017). 6. Turning to the meaning of the expression "completion certificate" in the context of the State of Assam, reference must first be made to section 2(q) of the Act which defines the expression to mean a certificate, by whatever name called, issued by the competent authority certifying that the real estate project has been developed according to the sanctioned plan, layout plan, specifications, as approved by the competent authority under the local laws. Now turning to the definition of "competent authority", as given in section 2(p) of the Act, it means the local authority or any authority created or established under any law for the time being in force by the appropriate Government which exercises authority over land under its jurisdiction and has powers to give permission for development of such immovable property. In the context of the instant case and the expression "completion certificate", paramount to take note of is the aforementioned State legislation applicable to the instant case, namely, The Assam Notified Urban Areas (Other Than Guwahati) Building Rules, 2014. In the context of the instant case and the expression "completion certificate", paramount to take note of is the aforementioned State legislation applicable to the instant case, namely, The Assam Notified Urban Areas (Other Than Guwahati) Building Rules, 2014. Rule 23 of the said Building Rules pertains to "Completion Certificate", which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "23. Completion Certificate.- (1) The owner through the licensed architect, engineer, structural engineer, as the case may be, who has supervised the construction, shall give notice to the Authority regarding completion of work described in the building permission. The completion certificate shall be submitted in form numbers - 10, 11, 12 and 16 by four sets of completion as-built plan. One of the sets, duly certified as completion plan shall be returned to the owner along with the issue of occupancy certificate by the Authority. (2) It shall be incumbent on every applicant whose plans have been approved, to submit a completion report. (3) It shall also be incumbent on every person/agency who is engaged under these rules to supervise the erection or re-erection of the building, to submit the completion report. (4) No completion report shall be accepted unless completion plan is submitted. (5) The final inspection of the work shall be made by the concerned competent authority within 21 days from the date of receipt of notice of completion report." From the above, there is no room for doubt that in respect of the urban areas, herein the district of Dibrugarh in the State of Assam, which falls within the scope and ambit of the Building Rules, no scope whatsoever is provided to any authority to issue completion certificate in respect of a real estate project. To be precise, a "completion certificate" can only be a certificate which is furnished by the owner of the real estate project certifying completion of the building in prescribed Form 16 appended to the Building Rules, accompanied by Building Completion Certificates of the Architect on Record in Form 10; of the Construction Engineer on Record in Form 11 and of the Structural Engineer on Record in Form 12 respectively. It is not a certificate that can be issued by any of the institutions falling within the definition of "authority" under Rule 2(5) of the said Building Rules. 7. It is not a certificate that can be issued by any of the institutions falling within the definition of "authority" under Rule 2(5) of the said Building Rules. 7. Having noticed above the meaning of the expressions "completion certificate" and "competent authority", it would now be relevant to understand the definition of "occupancy certificate", as provided in section 2(zf) of the Act. It means a certificate, by whatever named called, issued by the competent authority permitting occupation of any building, as provided under local laws, having provision for civic infrastructure such as water, sanitation and electricity. The local law applicable to the case in hand is the aforementioned Building Rules of 2014. Rule 24 of the said Building Rules, which pertains to "occupancy certificate" as well as the definition of "authority" given under Rule 2(5) thereof may now be reproduced for ready reference : "24. Occupancy Certificate.- The Authority, on receipt of the completion certificate, shall inspect the work and sanction or refuse an occupancy certificate, in the forms 24 or 25, as the case may be, within 21 working days from the date of receipt of completion certificate, after which period it shall be deemed to have been approved by the Authority for occupation provided the building has been constructed as per the sanctioned plans or within permissible limits as permitted within the provisions of these rules. Where the occupancy certificate is refused, the various reasons shall be quoted for rejection, at the first instance itself." "(5) "authority" shall mean local, regional or any other Authority appointed by the State Government for the purpose of administering these rules. Unless otherwise appointed by the State Government, the Authority in the case of a notified Municipal area shall mean the Town Committee, the Municipal Board or the Municipal Corporation as may be constituted from time to time under the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (Assam Act 15 of 1957) and in case of Master Plan area, other than notified Municipal area, shall mean the Development Authority constituted for that area under the provisions of the Assam Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 (Assam Act 2 of 1960)" 8. The clear understanding emanating from Rule 24 as well as Rule 2(5), as reproduced above, is that the "authority", which would mean the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board in the instant case, was statutorily required to inspect the work of the project and either sanction or refuse the grant of Occupancy Certificate within an outer limit period of within 21 (twenty-one) working days from the date of receipt of completion certificate from the owner. This statutory obligation is also incorporated in sub-rule (5) of Rule 23 of the Building Rules. In case of sanction of Occupancy Certificate, the same is required to be communicated to the owner in Form 24 appended to the Building Rules and in case of refusal or rejection of grant of Occupancy Certificate, the same is required to be communicated to the owner in Form 25 thereof. A perusal of Form 25 shows that the authority while rejecting grant of Occupancy Certificate within the period prescribed is mandated to provide reasons by indicating the particulars of such other documents that are further required to be submitted or by indicating the deviations in the construction that would require rectifications or by indicating the items that can be regularized on making payment of such amount of compounding fee noted against each of the items. A legal fiction is hedged in Rule 24 as to the consequence befalling in case the "authority" is unable to inspect the work and sanction or refuse an Occupancy Certificate in the prescribed formats within the prescribed 21 working days period. The legal fiction is a presumption that in case of failure to sanction or to refuse an Occupancy Certificate in the prescribed formats within the prescribed period, occupation in the building shall be deemed to have been approved by the "authority". Although a rider is provided that deemed approval for occupation would be subject to the building having been constructed as per the sanctioned plan or within permissible limits, law ordains that any reason justifying that the construction marks a departure from the sanctioned plan or permissible limits, the same must necessarily be communicated by the "authority" to the Promoter "at the first instance itself", without brooking inordinate delay. What transpires from the records, particularly from page 45 of the appeal memo in REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025, is that on the issue of occupancy certificate it was only in the meeting dated 04.10.2023, held in the office chamber of Chairperson, Dibrugarh Municipal Board, that a view was taken that the Promoter/Builder was not entitled to have occupancy certificate as well as completion certificate from the authority as the Builder violated building norms by reducing the land area up to 1 Katha-17 Lechas. Whereas law permitted an outer limit period of 21 working days for the Dibrugarh Municipal Board to decide on the grant or refusal of occupancy certificate in respect of the real estate project "Orchid Residency", it took more than seven long years for the said authority to reach a decision. 9. From the provisions of law referred to above, the "completion certificate" mentioned both in the first proviso to sub-section (1) as well as in clause (b), sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, in so far as the urban areas in the State of Assam falling under the ambit of the aforesaid Building Rules are concerned, can only mean an "occupancy certificate". Therefore, all real estate projects falling within the scope and ambit of the Building Rules that had commenced construction prior to the enactment of the Act but construction was going on and Occupancy Certificate had not been received by the date of commencement of the Act i.e. 01.05.2016 or by the date when Section 3 was put into force i.e. 01.05.2017, it must be reckoned to be an ongoing project, in which case the Promoter was mandatorily required to have made application to the concerned Real Estate Regulatory Authority for registration of the project within a period of 3 months next. Per contra, if facts in the instant case would undisputedly go to suggest that "Orchid Residency" was not a project ongoing but rather a completed project on the date of commencement of the Act i.e. 01.05.2016 and to which occupancy in the said building was deemed to have been approved by the competent authority by virtue of the legal fiction hedged in Rule 24 of the Building Rules prior to the commencement of the Act, in that event the benefit of exemption from registration permitted under clause (b), sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act cannot be denied or withheld from the Respondent/Promoter. 10. On the above, submissions made on behalf of the appellants may now be noticed. It is contended that the very fact that the (i) Transformer Agreement was executed by and between the Respondent/Promoter and the APDCL, Dibrugarh on 25.04.2018 (page 35 of REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025); (ii) that the techno-commercial proposal for sale of the Elevator was made by one ECE Industries Limited to the Respondent/Promoter vide letter dated 28.11.2016 (page 37 of REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025), and (iii) that permission was sought by the Respondent/Promoter from the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board to a revised drawing on 13.10.2020 (page 26 of REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025), the said three events are clear pointers that the building was not complete on any date prior to the Act coming into force and, in fact, the Respondent/Promoter could not have submitted the application dated 10.03.2016 for grant of Occupancy Certificate in respect of an incomplete building. An analysis of the said submissions pitted against facts of the case would disclose that the contentions put forth are without merit. As regards (i) and (ii) above, there is nothing on record to demonstrate objections being raised from any quarters regarding absence of civic infrastructure, particularly, electricity supply in the building premises. No any objection was raised alleging any inconvenience faced in accessing higher floors of the building. Pertinent to note, the appellants in REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 06 of 2025 and REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 07 of 2025 admitted to taking possession of their share of flats during the last part of the year 2017 and the appellant in REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 08 of 2025 in the year 2018. Complaints of both Mrs. Amina Begum and others and that of Dr. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah were received by the RERA on 19.09.2022. Complaints of both Mrs. Amina Begum and others and that of Dr. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah were received by the RERA on 19.09.2022. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board had raised any queries with the Respondent/Promoter with regard to absence of electricity supply in the premises or with regard to non-installation of Lift/Elevator pursuant to receipt of the application dated 10.03.2016 for Occupancy Certificate. As to the contention in (iii) above, it is seen that permission sought was not with regard to change/revision in the sanctioned plan but only in respect of internal changes in the first floor of the commercial and residential building, without disturbing the As Built-Up area, for use of the floor as a hotel. It may be mentioned that in so far as the hotel on the first floor is concerned and as brought to notice of this Tribunal, if the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board have already directed closure of the hotel business and also cancellation of the hotel licence vide its order dated 21.05.2024 (page 12 of REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 08 of 2025) in pursuance of the order of the RERA dated 29.01.2024 passed in the connected Complaint Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2022/36 (page 10 of REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 08 of 2025), and if despite such orders the hotel is alleged to operating until date, the same being a separate and distinct issue falling within the exclusive domain of the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board, the said issue would require to be addressed by the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board by taking such action, as may be deemed just and proper, in strict accordance with law. 11. In the course of arguments, Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior counsel for the appellants Mrs. Amina Begum and others, relied upon three judgments in furtherance of his contention that for the fact that the construction of the building was not complete prior to the date of commencement of the Act, as such, the Respondent/Promoter could not have applied for grant of Occupancy Certificate in the very first place and in that view of the matter no benefit of deemed approval for occupation in the building could be deemed to have accrued or could have been read in favour of the Respondent/Promoter. The said three judgments are (i) Judgment dated 16.02.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.S.A. No. 27 of 2020 (M/s SARE Shelters Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. SARE SQUIRES and another); (ii) Judgment dated 27.08.2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 11590 of 2024 (Sunil and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), and (iii) Judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Guwahati in REAT/ASSAM/APPEAL No. 12 of 2023 (RDB Realty Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam). It is seen that the primary question arising in the case of M/s SARE Shelters (supra) above was whether the completion certificate issued by the Executive Officer of Thiruporur Town Panchayat in the year 2014 can be construed as a valid completion certificate for the purpose of granting exclusion from registration of the project in question by giving the benefit under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. After a detailed examination of the facts in issue, the High Court of Madras arrived at the conclusion that the completion certificate, not having been issued in consonance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, more specifically, without first conducting any proper inspection or enquiry with reference to the actual completion of the project and/or that the completion certificate having been issued without the same complying with the building plan approval sanctioned by the Director of Town and Country Planning, therefore, the same cannot be construed as a valid certificate for the purpose of grant of exclusion under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act and that the building is to be treated as an ongoing project. In the next judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 11590 of 2024, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had observed that on the objection filed by the petitioner therein with regard to the applicability of the provision of the Act, the RERA of Madhya Pradesh had obtained a spot inspection report and it was found that the petitioners had not completed the development work and that the Committee so appointed to make spot inspection also observed that the completion certificate was not issued in accordance with law. In this situation, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that where the completion certificate was erroneously obtained by the petitioner, then the same cannot be used for taking the petitioners out of the purview of the Act. In so far as the third case is concerned, this Tribunal have held that the Appellant therein cannot derive or claim any benefit of the deeming provision/legal fiction when the completion certificate submitted by the owner along with the application for Occupancy Certificate could not be deemed to be in compliance with Section 11(a) of the Guwahati Building Construction (Regulation) Act, 2010. In the said appeal it was observed that before the RERA the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) had clearly expressed that there were number of deviations/changes and that the project was not executed as per the approved plan. On careful perusal of the above three cases, both on facts and law, this Tribunal is of the considered view that having strict regard to the primary issue for determination in the present appeals as well as considering the pleaded case and the reliefs sought for by the appellants herein in their respective complaint cases, there can be no iota of doubt that the cases cited by Mr. Roy are without relevance and has no bearing to the final determination of the instant appeals. The said judgments cited by Mr. Roy are clearly misplaced. 12. In the instant case and as borne out of records, the building completion certificates of the Architect/Construction Engineer/Structural Engineer in the prescribed Form Nos.10, 11 and 12 are dated 08.03.2016 and the same were made part of the application dated 10.03.2016 made by the Respondent/Promoter for Occupancy Certificate to the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board. The said certificates and application clearly suggests that construction of the building stood completed well before the date of commencement of the Act i.e. 01.05.2016. In terms of Rule 24 of the Building Rules the inspection of the project together with sanction or refusal of Occupancy Certificate ought to have been done within 21 working days from 10.03.2016, which works out to as on or before 07.04.2016. For any deviations etc., the same was required to have been communicated to the Respondent/Promoter in the prescribed format under Form 25 at the first instance itself. For any deviations etc., the same was required to have been communicated to the Respondent/Promoter in the prescribed format under Form 25 at the first instance itself. None of the above having been done, the benefit of deemed approval accrued on the Respondent/Promoter on a date prior to the commencement of the Act, i.e. 01.05.2016, thereby exempting the Respondent/Promoter from registering the project "Orchid Residency" with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam, by virtue of clause (b), sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. 13. There is no gainsaying that the real estate project "Orchid Residency" stood completed and occupancy can be deemed to have been approved by the competent authority by legal fiction hedged in Rule 24 of the Building Rules, both event occurring prior to the date when the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and/or the provision of Section 3 of the said Act became operational. Situated thus, the impugned order of the RERA dated 07.01.2025 in the suo-moto case holding that the Respondent/Promoter was not liable to get the real estate project "Orchid Residency" registered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act is a correct view on the facts of the case and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the same is upheld. 14. Having held exclusion of the project from registration, as discussed above, it is now to determine whether the real estate project "Orchid Residency" fell beyond the purview or scope and ambit of the Act. A conclusive answer to the above can be had from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2021:INSC:716. At paragraph 37 of the said judgment the Apex Court, after looking at the scheme of the Act and Section 3 in particular, observed that all ongoing projects that commenced prior to the Act and in respect to which Completion Certificate has not been issued, are covered under the Act. But in respect of the status of real estate projects already completed prior to the Act becoming operational, the Apex Court at paragraph 54 of the judgment held that the projects already completed or to which completion certificate has been granted do not come within the fold of the Act. But in respect of the status of real estate projects already completed prior to the Act becoming operational, the Apex Court at paragraph 54 of the judgment held that the projects already completed or to which completion certificate has been granted do not come within the fold of the Act. It was held that the Act will apply only after the ongoing projects and future projects are registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act. The said paragraph 54 reads : "54. From the scheme of the 2016 Act, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and, therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the ongoing projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the 2016 Act." 15. Bearing in mind the clear prescription of law in Newtech Promoters (supra) and having already held in the preceding paragraphs of this instant judgment that the real estate project "Orchid Residency" had stood completed prior to the Act coming into force and/or or prior to the date when Section 3 thereof was put into force and also occupation in the building having been deemed to have been granted by the Dibrugarh Municipality/Dibrugarh Municipal Board by legal fiction engrafted in the aforesaid Rule 24 of the Building Rules prior to the date of commencement of the Act, therefore, by virtue of the law laid down in Newtech Promoters (supra), particularly paragraph 54 thereof, the real estate project "Orchid Residency" cannot be considered to fall within the fold of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In this view of the matter, the complaints filed by the Appellants were clearly not maintainable for adjudication before the RERA, Assam, in exercise of powers under the said Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 16. From the foregoing discussions and findings, all the three appeals are dismissed for want of merit. Both the orders dated 07.01.2025 and 18.02.2025, passed by the RERA, are upheld as no interference is called for. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. From the foregoing discussions and findings, all the three appeals are dismissed for want of merit. Both the orders dated 07.01.2025 and 18.02.2025, passed by the RERA, are upheld as no interference is called for. There shall be no order as to costs. Office to serve copies of this Judgment and Order to all the parties as well as to the RERA, Assam. Office shall also return the case records to the Office of the RERA, Assam forthwith.