Promoter sought restoration of RERA appellate tribunal appeals dismissed for non-deposit of the statutory amount and directions on hearing. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, noting an appeal lies under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3168 of 2025
M/s. Vipul Limited
…. Petitioner
Ms. Adisha Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Odisha Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal
3. Additional District Magistrate,
Bhubaneswar
…. Opp. Parties
Mr. Debashis Nayak, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No.
05.02.2025
This writ application has been filed with a prayer for restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioner and to decide the amount of statutory deposit to be paid by the petitioner with a further direction to the Additional District Magistrate- Opposite Party No.3 to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through legal heirs.
Page 1 of 4
It appears that the petitioner who was the promoter filed
OREAT Appeal No. 50(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 53(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 63(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 56(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 55(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 54(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 59(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 49(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 58(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 46(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 62(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 61(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 51(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 44(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 47(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 45(T) of 2020, OREAT Appeal No. 52(T) of 2020 under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) which were dismissed on 26.11.2021, 01.12.2021, 22.11.2021, 23.04.2021, 26.11.2021, 21.02.2024, 03.12.2021, 01.12.2021, 24.11.2021, 22.11.2021, 22.11.2021, 29.11.2021, 03.12.2021, 29.11.2021, 24.11.2021, 06.12.2021, 29.11.2021 for non-deposit of the statutory amount.
Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (in short “the Act”) is quoted herein below;-
Page 2 of 4
“Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter:
Provided that where a promoter files an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having deposited with the Appellate Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the penalty, or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is heard.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force.”
Section 58 of the 2016 Act deals with appeal to the High Court
and provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or the order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of C.P.C. It has been further provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after expiry of
Page 3 of 4
the period of 60 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
As provision for appeal has been provided against the order
passed in the aforementioned OREAT Appeals, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of.
It is open to the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the
learned Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law.
(S. K. Sahoo) JUDGE
(Savitri Ratho) JUDGE
Subhalaxmi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 19:26:19
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking restoration of OREAT appeals dismissed for non-deposit of statutory deposit should be entertained when an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 58 of the 2016 A
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Vipul Limited
State of Odisha
Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar
S. K. Sahoo
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
