U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lko. Thru. Executive Engineer Construction DIVISION-9 v. Narayan Das Chaurasia

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2025RERA/32/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 58 of the RERA Act challenging a Tribunal order directing interest for delayed possession. Counsel argued the Adjudicating Officer lacked such jurisdiction, citing Newtech Promoters. Court issued notice to the respondent and listed the appeal for fresh hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lko. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

RERA APPEAL No. - 32 of 2025

¶3

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lko. Thru. Executive Engineer Construction Division-9

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Narayan Das Chaurasia

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶12

Heard Sri Manav Rathaur, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant- U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.

¶13

By means of the present appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016, the appellant has assailed the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in Appeal No.56 of 2024 (U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad versus Narayan Das Chaurasia).

¶14

The ground of challenge in the present appeal is that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal preposition that the Adjudicating Officer lacked jurisdiction in directing the payment of interest for delayed delivery of possession as the regulatory authority is the competent authority for granting the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus State of U.P. and others ; reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1044 . He further submits that the learned adjudicating authority could not have correctly appreciated that there is in fact no conflict or repugnancy amongst Section 18(1) and Section 19(4) of the Act of 2016 as the said issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

RERA No. 32 of 2025

(supra ).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has emphasized on the other ground challenging the impugned order that though the learned Tribunal was not authorised to grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed for but while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief to the respondents which otherwise could not be granted.

¶19