In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Haryana Government notification that granted Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s (HRERA) Adjudicating Officers the authority to recover dues with the same powers as district Collectors.
The notification dated May 11, 2024, was challenged on the grounds that it did not have proper legal sanction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The division bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice H.S. Grewal, ruled that the notification was legally unsustainable.
“The government must amend the rules if needed and assign proper revenue officials to handle the enforcement of these dues,”
— Punjab and Haryana High Court
The key argument raised by the petitioner was that Section 40(1) of the Real Estate Act, 2016, does permit the recovery of penalties, interest, or compensation as arrears of land revenue. However, it does not permit adjudicating officers to execute such orders themselves.
Under the Real Estate Act, separate roles are clearly assigned to regulatory authorities, appellate authorities, and adjudicating officers. Each of these bodies has a distinct jurisdiction and power to enforce their respective orders. The petitioner pointed out that giving adjudicating officers the power to execute orders related to penalties and interest would breach this structure.
The court was convinced that the impugned notification violates Section 40(1), as it wrongly empowers the adjudicating authority to act beyond its legal mandate. According to the law, although such dues can be recovered as land revenue, the mechanism for execution must involve proper revenue officials, not adjudicating officers.
“The delegation of such powers to adjudicating officers is not supported by the Real Estate Act, and such execution powers must remain with designated revenue officers,”
— Court observed
The petitioner had further highlighted that the Real Estate Act does not include any statutory provision which allows adjudicating officers to perform enforcement duties that fall under the jurisdiction of revenue officials or other designated authorities. The court agreed with this view and held that any such delegation would be against the spirit and structure of the Act.
Concluding the matter, the bench emphasized that any recovery of dues like penalty, interest, or compensation must follow due process as outlined in the Act, and only properly designated officials under revenue laws should be entrusted with such execution responsibilities.
As a result, the notification was quashed, and the Haryana Government has been advised to bring any changes to the law only through proper rule-making procedures if it intends to alter enforcement powers.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate and
Mr. Venket Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with Mr. Shobit Phutela, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondent(s)/Union of India.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurah Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur Manchanda, Advocate Ms. Gurcharan Kaur, Advocate,
Mr. Sandeep Chabbra, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for the respondent-RERA.
Title: M/S VATIKA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS