-
by Admin
17 December 2025 8:55 AM
"RERA Jurisdiction Not Dependent On Project Registration — Remedy Available Even If Promoter Defaults On Registration" - In a crucial judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court firmly held that “the failure of a promoter to obtain registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) does not bar an allottee from approaching the RERA Authority.” The Court emphasized that the right of the allottee is statutory and cannot be extinguished by the mere absence of registration. The ruling came as a major relief for numerous home buyers who face the hurdle of unregistered projects.
The dispute arose when Anil Kumar Yadav and others challenged an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, questioning its jurisdiction on the ground that the project was unregistered. It was argued that since the project had not been registered under Section 3 and no directive for registration had been issued, HRERA lacked the authority to entertain the complaint filed by the allottees.
However, the purchasers had already paid substantial amounts to the promoters and alleged violations of their rights under the RERA framework. HRERA proceeded to entertain the complaint, leading to the present challenge.
Rejecting the petitioners’ contention, the High Court observed, “The non-issuance of license under Section 3 of the RERA Act does not restrict the right of the home buyers to access the remedy as contemplated under the Act.” The Bench further clarified that Section 31 of the Act grants the jurisdiction to entertain complaints from allottees against promoters, irrespective of whether the project is registered.
The Court remarked, “Section 31 of the Act unambiguously grants the right to an allottee to raise a complaint against a promoter, allottee or agent for any violation of the Act, rules or regulations. The existence of registration is not a condition precedent to maintainability of the complaint.”
The Bench pointed out that Section 59 of RERA, which provides for penal consequences for non-registration, operates independently and does not curtail the jurisdiction of the authority to decide allottee complaints.
The Court found no merit in the plea that absence of registration would nullify RERA’s adjudicatory jurisdiction. It stated, “Non-registration of the project will not bar the maintainability of the complaints before the RERA Authority. The statute nowhere mandates that registration is a sine qua non for invoking RERA’s jurisdiction.”
The Court explained that the heart of RERA’s dispute resolution mechanism is Section 31, stating, “Section 31 is the nerve center for vestment of adjudicatory jurisdiction in RERA, not Section 3.”
Dealing with the status of the petitioners, the Court concluded, “The petitioner falls within the statutory definition of ‘promoter’ and the respondent falls within the definition of ‘allottee’ even if the project is yet to be launched or remains unregistered.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that “RERA applies to all ongoing projects lacking a completion certificate as on the date of the Act, and its jurisdiction is retroactive.”
Reinforcing the legislative intent, the Court observed, “The jurisdiction of the RERA Authority does not hinge upon the registration status of the project but on the very fact of there being a promoter and an aggrieved allottee.”
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court upheld the authority of RERA to entertain the complaint and noted that the petitioners were free to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 43 of the Act. The Court remarked, “We find no merit in the challenge raised by the petitioners against the authority of RERA to decide the complaint.”
This judgment decisively settles the controversy that mere absence of registration cannot deprive allottees of their right to seek remedies under RERA.
Date of Decision: 20 March 2025
