Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. Yogesh Keshav Bele, owned land adjacent to a project called 'Blue Heaven' developed by Respondent No. 3. He was not an allottee in that project. On 23 August 2017, he lodged a written complaint with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority alleging various illegalities, including encroachment on his land, use of his FSI, and construction without registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). On 26 April 2019, the Regulatory Authority disposed of the complaint, holding that the project was completed prior to the commencement of the RERA Act and thus not required to be registered under Section 3. The Authority also noted that the appellant was not an 'allottee' or 'interested person' and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act on 25 June 2019. On 13 February 2023, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on multiple grounds, including the appellant's lack of locus standi. The appellant then filed a second appeal under Section 58 of the RERA Act before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the definitions under the RERA Act and concluded that only an allottee or an interested person can maintain a complaint under Section 31. Since the appellant was neither, he had no locus standi. The Court also noted that the project was completed before the Act came into force, exempting it from registration under Section 3. The High Court found no error in the orders of the Regulatory Authority or the Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the second appeal.
Headnote
A) Real Estate Law - Locus Standi - Non-Allottee Complaint - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Sections 3, 31, 44, 58 - The appellant, an adjacent landowner not an allottee in the project, filed a complaint alleging encroachment and lack of registration. The Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal dismissed the complaint for lack of locus standi. The High Court held that only an allottee or an interested person as defined under the Act can maintain a complaint under Section 31, and the appellant did not fall within that category. (Paras 1-10) B) Real Estate Law - Registration Exemption - Completed Project - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 3 - The project 'Blue Heaven' was completed prior to the commencement of the RERA Act. The Regulatory Authority held that such a project is not required to be registered under Section 3. The High Court affirmed that projects completed before the Act came into force are exempt from registration. (Paras 3, 10) C) Real Estate Law - Appellate Tribunal - Dismissal on Locus - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 44 - The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of locus standi and also on merits. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the Tribunal's order. (Paras 5, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who is not an allottee or an interested person in a real estate project has locus standi to file a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and whether a project completed prior to the commencement of the Act is required to be registered under Section 3 thereof.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the orders of the Regulatory Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain the complaint under the RERA Act and that the project, being completed before the Act, was not required to be registered.
Law Points
- Locus standi under RERA Act
- Section 3 exemption for completed projects
- Definition of allottee and interested person
- Maintainability of complaint by non-allottee
