1 2025:CGHC:46531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 144 of 2024 1 - Shiv Enclave Through Promoter Mahamaya Constructions Through Partner Harivallabh Agrawal, Aged 53 Years, S/o Lt. Ramdayal Agrawal, Address - Mahamaya Construction, Opp. Binda Sonkar School, Shiv Vatika, Ashwini Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - C.G. Real Estate Regulatroy Authority At - Shashtri Chowk, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For appellant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This misc. appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Act of 2016’), has been filed by the appellant challenging the order (Annexure A-1) dated 23-8-2024 passed in Appeal No. 274/2024 by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth, referred to as ‘Appellate Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.12 16:30:12 +0530 2 Tribunal’), upholding the order (Annexure A-16) dated 19-6-2024 passed in Case No. SM-EXP-2023-02089 by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Raipur (henceforth, referred to as ‘RERA’), whereby penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been imposed against the appellant promoter under Section 6 of the Act of 2016 read with Rule 7 of the CG Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Rules of 2017’). 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the appellant is promotor and developer of project named and titled as ‘Shiv Enclave’. The project was registered before the RERA on 27-11-2018 and its validity was upto 30-7-2022. On 4-6-2024, he filed application for extension of registration of aforesaid project. As the project was not completed within time, earlier the Registrar, RERA submitted a memo dated 22- 11-2023 to the RERA mentioning above fact, therefore, the RERA registered a suo moto case against the appellant/promoter bearing Case No. SM-EXP-2023-02089, in which penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed against the appellant, which was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. 4. The Appellate Tribunal remitted back the matter to the RERA vide order (Annexure A-8) dated 1-5-2024 passed in appeal No. 254/2024 with direction to pass a fresh order after providing two opportunities to the promoter to file reply and after considering the same. The RERA after providing opportunity of hearing to the promoter, held that, the project has not been completed within specified period and extension application under Section 6 of the Act of 2016, has been filed after 3 delay of 23 months. Thus, he contravenes Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 2017 and vide order (Annexure A-16) dated 19-6-2024, the RERA imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- upon the appellant, who again challenged the same by filing Appeal No. 274/2024 before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide impugned order (Annexure A-1) upholding the order dated 19-6-2024. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, period of project of the appellant was till 30th July, 2022, but because of Covid 19 pandemic, the project could not be completed within specified period, therefore, vide order dated 14-2-2024 passed by the RERA in Case No. SM-EXP-2023-02089, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed upon the appellant. That order was challenged by it by filing Appeal No. 254/2024 before the Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed vide order (Annexure A-8) dated 1-5-2024 and the matter was remitted back to the RERA to pass fresh order after affording due opportunity to the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that, after providing opportunity of hearing, the RERA vide order (Annexure A-16) dated 19-6-2024 enhanced the amount of penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-, only because the project was not completed within the specified period and further as the extension was sought belatedly i.e. after 23 months. Enhancement of penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- for violation of same provisions i.e. Section 6 of the Act of 2016 read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 2017 is without any reason and the same has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal without 4 mentioning any cogent reason. He submits that, enhancement of penalty to such a huge extent is only because, the Appellate Tribunal ordered the RERA to pay the litigation expenses to the appellant. Whereas, as per Annexure A-17 (Colly page 90 to 111), in various cases i.e. Case No. SM-EXP-2024-02289, Case No. SM-EXP-2024- 02250, Case No. SM-EXP-2024-02304 etc. for the act of same violation, the RERA has imposed very less amount of penalty i.e. Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 1,000/-, respectively. He prays that, the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as RERA may be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, though earlier, amount of penalty was Rs. 1,00,000/-, but at first instance, while imposing penalty, reply was not filed by the appellant/promoter despite granting adequate opportunity. Subsequently, after remitting the matter by the Appellate Tribunal, appellant filed its reply mentioning baseless reasons for not completing the project within specified period and, further, it also could not explain sufficient cause for seeking extension of period of project after lapse of 23 months, therefore, amount of penalty was enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-, which is as per the provision of Section 61 of the Act of 2016, therefore, instant appeal is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 8. Undisputedly, earlier vide order (Annexure A-7) dated 14-2-2024, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed against the appellant for not getting extension of period of project under Section 6 of the Act of 2016 read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 2017, but for the same violation of the same provisions, in subsequent order (Annexure A-16) dated 19-6-2024 passed by the same authority, amount of penalty was remarkably enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. If violation of the necessary provisions of Act/Rules was similar, while passing both the orders, then no sufficient reason has been shown by the RERA for enhancing huge penalty to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Appellate Tribunal has also not assigned any appropriate reason of such a huge enhancement of penalty amount to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Rs. 1,00,000/-, whereas act of violation/misconduct is the same in both the occasion. 9. Since the act of violation was similar while passing both the orders i.e. 14-2-2024 and 19-6-2024, then without any sufficient and cogent reason, amount of penalty ought not have been increased to the huge extent of Rs. 10,00,000-. Though there is violation of Section 6 of the Act of 2016 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 2017 on the part of the appellant, but in view of above discussion, I feel inclined to reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- as was imposed by the RERA, vide earlier order dated 14-2-2024 upon the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders (Annexure A-16) dated 19-6-2024 and order (Annexure A-1) dated 23-8-2024 are modified to the extent, 6 that penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh Only) imposed upon the appellant is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only). 11. The appeal is allowed to above extent. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak