RERA Can Appeal Tribunal Orders In Its Regulatory Capacity, But Cannot Defend Its Own Adjudicatory Decisions: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"A quasi-judicial authority like Authority, when acting as an adjudicator, is not an 'aggrieved party', therefore, lacks locus standi to challenge the appellate order setting aside its decision except where it acts in a distinct statutory or regulatory capacity." Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, in a significant ruling dated April 6, 2026, held that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) can file appeals against orders of the Appellate Tribunal when exercising its regulatory functions, but lacks the locus standi to defend its own orders passed in a purely adjudicatory capacity.

A bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi observed that while judicial discipline prevents an adjudicator from challenging the reversal of its own order, RERA's distinct regulatory role allows it to maintain an appeal as a "person aggrieved" under the statute.

The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority filed miscellaneous second appeals under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. These appeals challenged orders passed by the M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Tribunal, which had allowed the respondents' appeals and remanded the matters back to the Authority for fresh adjudication. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that RERA, being an adjudicatory body, could not act as an appellant to defend its own decisions before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether an adjudicatory authority like RERA can challenge an order of a higher forum setting aside its own decision. The court was also called upon to determine if a quasi-judicial regulatory body falls within the ambit of a "person aggrieved" entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 58 of the Act, 2016.

RERA Discharges Administrative, Regulatory, And Adjudicatory Functions

The court extensively analyzed the scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, noting that the legislation confers three distinct types of functions upon the Authority. The bench mapped various provisions of the Act, clarifying that while dispute resolution between parties falls under the adjudicatory umbrella, functions like project registration and protecting overarching consumer interests are strictly regulatory. The court observed that these distinct roles must be carefully segregated when determining the Authority's right to file an appeal.

Meaning And Scope Of "Aggrieved Person"

Interpreting Sections 58, 43, and 2(zg) of the Act, 2016, the court explored the expansive definition of a "person" and an "aggrieved party". Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., the bench noted that the expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic and elusive concept that cannot be confined to rigid boundaries. The court stated that the scope of this term depends entirely on the intent of the statute and the nature of the prejudice suffered by the party.

"The expression 'person aggrieved' does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized."

Authority Becomes Aggrieved Party If Impleaded By Respondents

The bench placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Limited, which delineated when a statutory authority can be a party to an appeal. The High Court highlighted that in the present case, the respondents themselves had impleaded the Authority as a respondent before the Appellate Tribunal. The bench reasoned that once the Authority was formally made a party by the opposing side, it inherently became an "aggrieved party" upon the passing of an adverse appellate order.

No Locus To Defend Adjudicatory Orders, But Regulatory Appeals Maintainable

Drawing a firm line on the doctrine of judicial discipline, the court held that when RERA exercises its adjudicatory capacity to decide disputes between parties, it cannot maintain an appeal to defend its own decision before a higher forum. However, the bench carved out a clear exception for the Authority's regulatory duties. The court concluded that when powers are exercised in a regulatory capacity, the Authority does not merely adjudicate disputes but protects broader public interests, thereby granting it the legal standing to appeal.

"So far as the powers exercised in adjudicatory capacity is concerned, we do not have hesitation to say that the authority cannot maintain an appeal to defend its decision. However, the powers conferred in discharge of regulatory is concerned, the authority can maintain an appeal because that is not adjudicatory exercise of powers."

The High Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the respondents and held that all four miscellaneous second appeals filed by the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority are maintainable in law. The ruling provides crucial clarity on the dual nature of RERA's statutory role, balancing the strictures of judicial discipline with the Authority's mandate to regulate the real estate sector. The matters have been listed for hearing on admission on April 21, 2026.

Date of Decision: 06 April 2026