U.P. State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao Thru. Senior Project Officer v. Akhilesh Chandra Saxena

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024RERA/47/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court admitted RERA appeal challenging dismissal of delay compensation claim. Issues raised regarding binding nature of brochure clauses, statutory entitlement to interest without specific rules, and refund of appeal deposit. Interim order kept disputed amount interest-bearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao Thru… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- RERA APPEAL No. - 47 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- U.P. State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao Thru. Senior Project Officer Respondent :- Akhilesh Chandra Saxena Counsel for Appellant :- Kartikey Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd.Murtaza Khan,Deepak Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Kartikeya Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Deepak Dwivedi & Shri Mohd. Murtaza, learned counsels for the respondent.

¶6

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 58 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

¶7

Being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 passed in Appeal No.154 of 2023 whereby the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal has affirmed the order passed by the RERA Authority dated 14.09.2022.

¶8

The submission of the learned Counsel, for the purpose of admission, he has raised two questions.

¶9

It has been submitted that the appellant is a Government Corporation involved in development of projects. In terms of the aforesaid development activity, a brochure was issued in terms whereof offers were invited from the public at large. The terms and conditions contained in the said brochure were only illustrative and tentative and could not partake the nature of categorical representations as well as clauses to which the appellant could be strictly bound.

¶10

It is urged that in so far as the respondent is concerned, he has instituted a complaint whereby he sought the compensation for the delay in handing over the possession of plot in question.

¶11

It is urged that on account of certain unforeseen circumstances including agitation made by the farmers, the development project was delayed, however, in so far as the allotment letter which was issued to the respondent, it categorically spelt out the terms and conditions which clearly indicated that for handing over the possession a separate letter and date would be required. Ignoring the aforesaid clauses contained in the allotment letter, the RERA Authority as well as

¶12

the Appellate Tribunal has reverted to certain representations made in the brochure taken to be a binding clause against the appellant which is not legally permissible.

¶13

It is further submitted that once the Act provides for the certain measures for refund of amount along with interest in terms of Rule 15 as framed under the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016, however, till date no such backup of the Rules regarding the interest has been created till date. In absence of the prescribed rules, it was not open for either the RERA Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to merely reply on a proforma of an agreement which is appended to the Rules, though, not signed between the parties.

¶14

It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that both the RERA Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal has erred in overlooking the contentions raised by the appellant.

¶15

It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel that once an appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal, it is not open for it to return or revert the amount which is deposited by the appellant as a per-requisite for the entertainment of his appeal to the RERA Authority in terms of Section 43 (5) of the Act of 2016.

¶16

It is also submitted that if at all the appeal is dismissed, the amount is to be refunded/returned to the appellant and the appellate Authority cannot take over the powers of the Executing Court which is specifically assigned to the RERA Authority.

¶17

It has further been submitted that the interest which has been awarded in absence of any agreement or statutory backup, the reliance placed upon mere proforma agreement which was not even signed by the parties does not hold good.

¶18

The matter requires consideration.

¶19

The RERA Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶20

"(i) Whether the Tribunal has acted in derogation of the powers contained under Section 44 read with Section 43 (5) of the Act of 2016?

¶21

(ii) Whether the allottee is entitled to interest if the project is delayed and whether in absence of any prescription as made in Rule 15 the Clause 9.2 of the Proforma agreement to sale which has been appended in the Uttar Pradesh Reat Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018 can be adhered to especially when they are only illustrative and indicative and not binding."

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent/caveator prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing objections.

¶23

List and connect this matter alongwith Rera Appeal No. 37 of 2022.

¶24

As an interim measure, it is provided that in case if the amount in terms of the Appellate order has not been transmitted to the RERA Authority, the same shall be kept on a interest bearing account with the Appellate Tribunal until further orders passed by this Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao Thru. Senior Project Officer v. Akhilesh Chandra Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao Thru. Senior Project Officer v. Akhilesh Chandra Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Mishra @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jamile @ Jamil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Santu Ghorai and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Devendra Pratap Singh @ Deepu vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Vinay Kumar Singh Alias Pappu Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.