Brijendra Kumar Sharma Vs U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The Registry has reported a delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal.

¶13

The respondent has filed objection dated 11.09.2024 against the said application.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the said application for condonation of delay.

¶15

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the said application is sufficient for condonation of delay.

¶16

Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed .

¶17

(On Appeal)

¶18

Heard Sri Azhar Ikram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava along with Sri Saurav Mishra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent/ U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow.

¶19

By means of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 310 of 2023 (U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Vs. Brijendra Kumar Sharma).

¶20

Briefly, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a well settled law that the order passed by the Bench which is not constituted in consonance with the manner of constitution of Benches as prescribed under Section 43 (3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is null and void in the eyes of law.

¶21

RERAD No. 20 of 2024

¶22

2

¶23

In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeals led by RERA Appeal No. 8 of 2024 (Shashank Gupta Vs. M/s Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow (Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:LKO:48238) decided on 18.08.2025. The learned counsel has emphatically argued that in the light of the settled legal position, the order dated 12.06.2024 which is impugned in the present appeal is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be allowed to stand on any other ground whatsoever.

¶24

Taking into consideration the aforesaid ground of challenge, the following substantial question of law is framed as under:

¶25

"Whether, the order passed by a Bench comprising of Chairman and a Judicial Member would be a proper 'Tribunal' in terms of the prescription contained in Section 43 (3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with the rules framed thereunder?

¶26

It is noteworthy that the question No. 2 framed in the case of Shashank Gupta (supra) , is identical to the question involved in the present appeal and the said question has been answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as follows:

¶27

"24. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the said three provisions, I do not have any hesitation in holding that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, which is not in consonance with the manner of constitution of Benches as prescribed under Section 43(3) of the Act is null and void and would not stand cured by invoking Section 55 of the Act.

¶28

25. In view of the said findings, the order impugned is clearly beyond the jurisdiction and cannot be sustained on that ground. "

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in RERA Appeal No. 34/24 (Real Estate Industrial Development Authority, Unnao thorugh Project Officer Versus Ravi Sharma) wherein the Court while allowing the appeals therein, held as under:

¶30

"2. The said appeals were admitted by means of the order dated 01.11.2024 and similar orders passed on different dates, wherein two questions were framed. However, at the time of the hearing, the third question with regard to the jurisdiction arises. As such, an additional substantial question of law to the following effect is framed.

¶31

3. Whether, the order passed by a Bench comprising of the Chairman and a Judicial Member, would be a proper Tribunal in terms of the prescriptions contained in Section 43(3) of the RERA Act, 2016 read with Rules framed thereunder?

¶32

4. The issue with regard to the jurisdiction involved in the present appeals has already been considered by this Court in the of Shashank Gupta Vs. M/s Vatika Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow (RERA Appeal No.8 of 2024) Neutral Citation No.2025: AHC-LKO:48238.

¶33

RERAD No. 20 of 2024

¶34

3

¶35

5. Following the said judgement, the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and impugned in the present appeals is held to be null and void and is, accordingly, set aside.

¶36

6. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to pass fresh order, in accordance with law.

¶37

7. The appeals are allowed."

¶38

In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 310 of 2023 (U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Vs. Brijendra Kumar Sharma) is clearly beyond the jurisdiction and cannot be sustained on that ground.

¶39

Therefore, without adverting on the other grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is remanded to the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow to consider and decide the appeal afresh, expeditiously, in the light of the law as discussed here-in-above and the observations made herein.

¶40

The present appeal is accordingly allowed .

¶41

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶42

October 15, 2025 (Manoj K.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijendra Kumar Sharma v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijendra Kumar Sharma v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt.Raghurai Vs Ram Shanker and Another

Smt. Zainab Vs Rahmat Ali

Smt. Laung Sree Vs Kaulay Ram and Others

Kunwar Shakti Singh Vs Kunwar Bahadur Singh and Others

Mrs. Sangeeta Kumar and Another Vs Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its Director and Another

Shailesh Awasthi Thru. Power of Attorney Holder Sri Brijendra Kumar Sharma Vs U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow