Completion Certificate Alone Determines RERA Applicability – Fire Safety and Occupancy Certificates Not Prerequisites: Orissa High Court

“Absence of occupancy certificate or fire safety clearance cannot dilute the legal sanctity of a validly issued completion certificate before May 1, 2017”, In a ruling that delivers significant clarity on the retrospective scope of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Orissa High Court has held that a real estate project that received a valid completion certificate prior to the cut-off date of May 1, 2017, is not subject to RERA, irrespective of whether an occupancy certificate or fire safety certificate was obtained at that time. The judgment, authored by Justice R.K. Pattanaik, was delivered on 22nd December 2025 in the appeals filed in M.S.A. No. 44 and 45 of 2024 by M/s. Utkal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., challenging orders of the Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT).

The Court decisively set aside the Tribunal’s finding that the absence of a fire safety certificate rendered the project “ongoing” and thus liable for RERA registration. “The completion certificate issued on 17th March 2015 is legally valid and sufficient to exclude the project from the ambit of RERA,” the Court ruled, adding that “insistence on fire safety clearance at that stage reflects a misreading of the statutory framework.”

“Completion Certificate Issued by Competent Authority Before RERA Cut-off Is Final — Fire Safety Norms Cannot Be Retrospectively Enforced”

The High Court’s judgment arose from a protracted legal tussle involving Utkal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a real estate promoter, and allottees who had filed complaints under RERA in 2019. The central issue was whether the project was “ongoing” under Section 3(1) of the Act, which would make registration mandatory. The promoter asserted that it had obtained a valid completion certificate from the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) on 17th March 2015, and had even delivered possession before May 2017, thus taking the project outside the purview of the Act.

However, the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) initially ruled in favour of the promoter, only for that decision to be reversed by the Appellate Tribunal. The OREAT concluded that in the absence of a fire safety certificate and occupancy certificate, the project remained "ongoing" and the complaints were maintainable.

This reversal triggered the second appeals before the High Court, which ultimately rejected the Tribunal’s rationale as flawed both in law and procedure.

“Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate Serve Distinct Legal Functions – Only Completion Is Relevant for RERA Exemption”

The High Court drew a sharp legal distinction between a completion certificate under Section 2(q) of the RERA Act and an occupancy certificate under Section 2(zf).

“The occupancy certificate permits usage and occupation after ensuring civic amenities. In contrast, the completion certificate is a prior, independent recognition that the construction has been completed as per sanctioned plans,” the Court observed. “The two cannot be conflated, and only the former is relevant for registration under Section 3 of the Act.”

The Court firmly rejected the respondents’ argument that the absence of an occupancy certificate implied that the project was incomplete. “A project can be legally complete without an occupancy certificate — though handing over possession without one may expose the promoter to liability, it does not revive RERA jurisdiction where a valid completion certificate exists prior to 1st May 2017,” the bench clarified.

“Fire NOC, Not Fire Safety Certificate, Is Required at Completion Stage”

In what is likely to set a precedent in future regulatory interpretations, the Court also addressed the confusion surrounding fire safety documentation. The OREAT had reasoned that the lack of a fire safety certificate rendered the 2015 completion certificate invalid. The High Court categorically rejected this logic.

“The law in 2015 only required a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Fire Prevention Officer, not a fire safety certificate, for the issuance of a completion certificate. The Fire Safety Rules came into force only in 2017 and cannot be applied retrospectively,” Justice Pattanaik held.

The Court emphasized that Regulation 67 of the BDA Planning and Building Standards Regulations, 2008 only demands a fire NOC at the completion stage, which had already been obtained and submitted by the promoter in this case. “To say that a completion certificate is invalid because a fire safety certificate—mandated only in 2017—was not produced in 2015 is both legally untenable and factually incorrect,” the Court ruled.

“OREAT Ignored Binding Decision of BDA on Project Completion”

The Court was also critical of the Tribunal's refusal to accept the BDA’s 2022 order, which had reaffirmed that no fresh completion certificate was necessary even after the promoter’s revised building plan in 2019. That decision was never challenged and had attained finality.

“When a competent authority under Section 2(p) of the Act has confirmed that a project stands completed, that finding binds all parties unless set aside by a superior forum. OREAT’s disregard of that decision amounted to a jurisdictional overreach,” the Court observed.

“Tribunal Cannot Reopen Validity of Completion Certificate Without Legal Basis”

The High Court went further to caution tribunals from questioning the validity of statutorily issued documents like completion certificates unless there is a direct challenge or material evidence of fraud. “In the absence of any such challenge, the BDA’s issuance of completion certificate on 17th March 2015 stands as a legal recognition of project completion under local laws,” the Court stated.

Any suggestion of impropriety or fraud, the Court observed, must be backed by concrete findings. “To claim that the completion certificate is a falsehood without evidence, merely because a fire safety certificate came later, is speculative and cannot form the basis for RERA jurisdiction,” the bench clarified.

“Newtech Judgment Squarely Applies — Completed Projects Are Not Amenable to RERA”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., the High Court reiterated that RERA is not intended to apply to completed projects.

“As held by the Apex Court, RERA is prospective in application and only governs ongoing and future projects. Completed projects — that is, those with a valid completion certificate before May 1, 2017 — are outside its fold,” the Court stated.

The Court allowed both the second appeals, set aside the OREAT’s orders dated 27th September 2024 and 13th November 2024, and restored the finding of ORERA that the complaints were not maintainable.

“In law, once a completion certificate is validly issued prior to the commencement of the Act, the project cannot be treated as ongoing — regardless of when the fire safety or occupancy certificates are obtained,” the Court declared in closing.

Date of Decision: 22nd December 2025