U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its Executive Engineer, Construction Lko. vs Santosh Kumar Saxena — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its Executive Engineer, Construction Lko. vs Santosh Kumar Saxena — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal admitted; notice ordered to the respondent; further proceedings pursuant to the Tribunal's judgment and order dated 29.08.2025 in Appeal No. D235 of 2024 kept in abeyance till the next date of listing; appeal tagged with RERA Appeal No.166 of 2025 and listed on 27.01.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the provisions of the Act of 2016 for instituting complaints under Section 31, and whether the principle of considering delay and latches/laches before admitting a lis shall be followed by tribunals/statutory authority in the absence of a prescribed limitation period. +4 more

Ratio / Principle

On hearing learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission, the Court admitted the appeal.

Key takeaways

Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent, returnable at an early date, with steps for service of notice to be taken within seven working days.ratio¶23
As an interim direction, till the next date of listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. D235 of 2024 shall remain in abeyance.ratio¶25
The appeal was directed to be tagged along with RERA Appeal No.166 of 2025 and listed on 27.01.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Prashant Kumar, J.), December 18, 2025: In RERA Appeal No. 228 of 2025, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, through its Executive Engineer (Construction), challenged under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act the judgment and order dated 29.08.2025 of the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. D235 of 2024 (Santosh Kumar Saxena Versus U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad). Hearing counsel for the appellant at the admission stage, the Court admitted the appeal and framed five substantial questions of law: (i) applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the delay-and-laches principle to complaints under Section 31 of the Act of 2016 absent a prescribed limitation period; (ii) whether a 'reasonable period' should govern allottees' complaints under Section 31 seeking relief under Section 18(1), or whether the right to complain remains open indefinitely; (iii) whether claims under the proviso to Section 18(1) for interest for every month of delay till handing over of possession survive where the 'demand' contemplated under the main proviso was not made within a reasonable time; (iv) and (v) whether the Tribunal acted legitimately in going beyond the narrow scope of the appeal (limitation/delay and laches) and deciding the merits of the complainant's case. Notice was issued to the respondent, returnable at an early date, with service steps due within seven working days; further proceedings pursuant to the Tribunal's order were placed in abeyance till the next date of listing; the appeal was tagged with RERA Appeal No.166 of 2025 and listed for 27.01.2026. No precedent was cited and no merits were decided at this stage.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

RERA APPEAL No. - 228 of 2025

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Its Executive Engineer, Construction Lko.

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Santosh Kumar Saxena

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ratnesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 19

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Heard Sri Manav Rathore holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant.

By means of present appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 29.08.2025 passed by U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. D235 of 2024 (Santosh Kumar Saxena Versus U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad).

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the admission of the appeal. This Court finds the following substantial questions of law necessary to be framed for the adjudication of the matter:-

"(i) Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to the provisions of the Act of 2016 for instituting complaints under Section 31 of the Act of 2016 and whether the principle of considering 'delay arid latches' before admitting a lis, being a principle which advances the cause of justice, shall be followed or not by the tribunals/statutory authority in absence of a prescribed limitation period?

(ii) Whether in the absence of a statutorily prescribed period of limitation, a 'reasonable period' should be considered for instituting the complaint by the allottees under Section 31 for relief under provision of Section 18(1) of the Act of 2016 so as to justify latches and unexplained, unwarranted and unavoidable delay, or whether the right to file complaint under Section 31

RERA No. 228 of 2025

2

of the Act 2016 can be kept open for an endless/indefinite period?

(iii) Whether the claims of an allottee regarding the 'interest for every month of delay till handing over of the possession' made under the proviso to Section 18(1) of RERA Act, 2016 should be considered in absence of a "demand" contemplated under the main proviso of Section 18(1) which was not made within a reasonable period of time and whether such an entitlement to lodge a claim can be kept open for an indefinite/infinite time period?

(iv). Whether the Learned Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in going beyond the scope of the Appeal, which was only on the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act and delay and laches in filing the complaint under Section 31 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

(v). Whether the findings given by the Learned Appellate Tribunal on issues relating to the merits of the case of the complainant which were beyond the scope of the Appeal preferred before the learned Tribunal can be sustained?"

Admit.

Issue notice to the respondent returnable at an early date.

Steps for service of notice be taken within seven working days.

It is provided that till the next date of listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. D235 of 2024, shall remain in abeyance.

Let this appeal be tagged along with RERA Appeal No.166 of 2025 and list on 27.01.2026.

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

December 18, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench