High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Rule 4 of Goa Real Estate Regulations — Execution of RERA Orders Partially Completed. The challenge to Rule 4 was deemed academic as the decree had been partially executed and proceedings were ongoing under the Land Revenue Code.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The litigation arose from a challenge to the vires of Rule 4 of the Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Recovery Of Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine Payable Forms Of Complaints And Appeal Etc.) Rules, 2017. The petitioner, M/s. Sunstar Homes, contested an order from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) that directed them to hand over possession of certain premises, pay penalties, and interest to complainants. The petitioner appealed the RERA order, but the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the original order. Subsequently, the complainants initiated execution proceedings in the Civil Court, which successfully executed the possession order. However, the enforcement of the penalty and interest payment was still pending before the Revenue Authorities under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1971. The court noted that the original decree had been fully executed regarding possession, while the proceedings for penalty and interest were ongoing. The court found that the respondents had correctly pursued execution of the decree under the appropriate legal framework. Given that the challenge to Rule 4 was rendered academic due to the execution status of the decree, the court dismissed the petitions without costs, discharging the rule in all petitions.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Vires of Rule 4 - Challenge to Rule 4 of Goa Real Estate Rules - Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 40 - The court declined to entertain the challenge to the vires of Rule 4 as the decree has been partially executed and the pending proceedings under the Land Revenue Code are within the powers of the Revenue Authorities. The court held that the challenge would be academic in nature given the facts of the case (Paras 7-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Rule 4 of the Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Recovery Of Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine Payable Forms Of Complaints And Appeal Etc.) Rules, 2017 is constitutionally valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the petitions challenging Rule 4 of the Goa Real Estate Rules, stating that the challenge was academic due to the partial execution of the decree and ongoing proceedings under the Land Revenue Code.

Law Points

  • Vires of Rule 4
  • Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
  • 2016
  • Execution of orders
  • Recovery of interest
  • penalty
  • compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (09) 106

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.467/2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.185/2024

2026-09-08

Valmiki Menezes, Amit S. Jamsandekar

Mr Harshad Bhadbhade, Ms Tabitha Liza Tayag Souto, Mr N. Vernekar, Mr S. Priolkar, Mr T. Gawas, Mr G. Shetye, Mr D. Shirodkar

M/S. SUNSTAR HOMES

THE STATE OF GOA, THE GOA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MR VIVEK ARJUN NAIK TULASKAR

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the vires of a regulatory rule concerning real estate transactions.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to challenge the validity of Rule 4 of the Goa Real Estate Rules.

Filing Reason

Petitioner contested an order from RERA regarding possession and payment of penalties.

Previous Decisions

The RERA order was confirmed by the appellate tribunal, and execution proceedings were initiated in the Civil Court.

Issues

Constitutional validity of Rule 4 Execution of RERA orders

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Rule 4 improperly prescribes execution methods. Respondents contended that the execution of the decree was correctly pursued.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the challenge to the vires of Rule 4 was academic as the decree had been partially executed and the remaining proceedings were within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities under the applicable laws.

Judgment Excerpts

The main challenge in these Petitions is to the vires of Rule 4 of the Goa Real Estate Rules. The court declined to entertain the challenge to the vires of Rule 4 as the decree has been partially executed.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the RERA order, which was confirmed by the appellate tribunal. Execution proceedings were initiated in the Civil Court, leading to the current petitions challenging Rule 4.

Acts & Sections

  • Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: Section 40
  • Goa Land Revenue Code, 1971:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Reopening of Assessment Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Without Proper Application of Mind. Transfer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to W...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Students' Petitions Challenging AICTE's Retrospective Reduction of Engineering Seats — Violation of Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectation. AICTE's power to regulate technical education does not include the power to ret...