Punjab and Haryana high court quashes Haryana govt's order to grant Rera recovery powers
Punjab and Haryana high court
has quashed Haryana govt's notification granting collector-like powers to officials of the real estate regulator for recovering dues.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The HC, on Thursday (April 24), ruled that Haryana
Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(H-Rera) officials can only conduct inquiries and determine compensation but cannot directly enforce recovery themselves.
Granting recovery powers to
Rera
officers, the court said, was a "violation of the legal framework" set under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), 2016.
The state govt, under chief minister Nayab Saini, had issued a notification on May 11, 2024 empowering Rera officers to recover interest, penalties and compensation amounts directly.
The HC also advised the state govt to amend the relevant rules and appoint appropriate revenue officers for recovery, in accordance with the established legal framework. Following the court's verdict, the Haryana govt will now have to redesign its recovery mechanism and Rera will need to adjust its functioning accordingly.
The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice HS Grewal, while hearing the matter, said the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (Rera), 2016 clearly defines the roles of different authorities.
The govt's move had been justified by the state citing five potential advantages. However, a real estate firm challenged the notification in the court in June 2024, arguing that under Rera, any outstanding amount should be recovered as arrears of land revenue and not directly by Rera officials.
Accepting the petitioner's arguments, the HC annulled the govt's notification and held that Rera officials' role is "limited to adjudication and assessment of dues".
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Enforcement of such dues must strictly follow the procedure under the
Haryana Land Revenue Act
, 1887 and should not be treated as equivalent to enforcing court orders.
The court rejected the state's argument that powers under Section 27 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act could justify its decision. The bench underlined that making rules and adjudicating matters are two separate functions and must remain distinct.
The court also criticised an earlier single-bench judgment that allowed Rera orders to be executed like civil court decrees.
The court made two key observations: first, that Rera officials are limited to inquiry and determination of compensation, and second, the recovery process must align with the legal framework, requiring necessary amendments and the appointment of proper authorities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC upholds ITAT order granting 80G approval to Raipur-based society
Raipur: In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that allowed a Raipur-based society to receive tax exemption benefits under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The court ruled that since the society already had a valid registration under Section 12AA—which confirms its charitable status—the Income Tax Department could not deny 80G approval by questioning its activities. The court dismissed the department's appeal, stating that the ITAT followed legal precedent and committed no error in granting the relief. The High Court ruled that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in directing that a society should be granted approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as long as its registration under Section 12AA of the Act is in existence. The court dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department, stating that no illegality or irregularity was committed by the ITAT in setting aside an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax deductions to individuals and companies who donate to charitable institutions and funds in India, while Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the registration of trusts and other charitable or religious institutions to avail tax exemptions on their income. The case involves a society that applied for approval under Section 80G of the Act on 28 Feb 2014. The CIT, Raipur, rejected the application on 25 Aug 2014, finding that the society was engaged in commercial activities and could not be considered a charitable organisation. The CIT noted that the society was running institutes on commercial lines, took large bank loans for infrastructure, and rented out its buildings for commercial purposes. The society filed an appeal with the ITAT, Raipur Bench, which allowed the appeal on 15 Jan 2019. The ITAT set aside the CIT's order and directed that the society be granted approval under Section 80G. The Income Tax Department, challenging the ITAT's decision, argued that the tribunal failed to appreciate that the society was providing vocational education for a fee, which it said did not qualify as "education" under Section 2(15) of the Act. The department contended that the society's work was commercial and not charitable. Counsels for the society, Sumesh Bajaj and Rishabh Bajaj, supported the ITAT's order. They argued that benefits under Section 80G of the Act cannot be denied if registration under Section 12AA is valid and has not been cancelled. They stated that the society's registration was renewed until Assessment Year 2026-27. The counsel cited judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Gujarat and Punjab and Haryana to support their arguments. After hearing both sides and reviewing the orders, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled in favour of the society. The court noted that the ITAT's decision was based on a precedent from the Gujarat High Court, which held that once registration under Section 12AA of the Act is granted, the benefits cannot be denied. The court observed that the department had not presented any material to show that the decision relied upon by the ITAT was set aside by a higher judicial forum. It held that the ITAT had not committed any illegality or irregularity. The High Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. It upheld the ITAT's decision, ruling that as long as the registration under Section 12AA of the Act is in existence, the Income Tax Department cannot make a further enquiry into the genuineness of the society's activities and whether they are charitable. The appeal filed by the Income Tax Department was dismissed. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC dismisses plea challenging validity of CG's school fee regulation
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the state's school fee regulation law and the rules framed under it. After considering the arguments, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the constitutional validity of a law cannot be questioned merely on the grounds of hardship caused to individuals, particularly when the rules are framed in the public interest. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitions were filed by an association of private schools contesting the Chhattisgarh Non-Governmental Schools Fee Regulation Act, 2020, and the corresponding rules. The petitioners claimed the legislation violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. According to the association, fee regulation under the Act would pose serious financial challenges for unaided private schools that receive no govt aid. They argued that CBSE-affiliated member schools rely entirely on fees collected from parents to cover salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff, infrastructure maintenance, and other statutory obligations. However, the court cited the precedent set in R.N. Goyal v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others, reiterating that a rule serving the general public good cannot be invalidated solely because it causes inconvenience to a particular group or individual. The court held that the 2020 Act and its rules are constitutionally sound and do not suffer from unreasonableness. "Consequently, we find no justification to strike down the Act or the rules, as they are neither unconstitutional nor violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution," the bench stated. Further, the court noted that the petitioner societies and associations cannot invoke Article 19, as its protections extend only to citizens. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Since the petitioners are not individuals but legal entities, they are not entitled to claim rights under Article 19(1). This, too, constituted a ground for dismissal. The court emphasised once again that individual hardship does not warrant invalidation of legislation enacted in the wider public interest. It reiterated that where rules framed under Article 309 serve the general good, their impact on specific individuals or institutions cannot form a basis for declaring them unconstitutional. In conclusion, the court found no merit in the challenge to the 2020 Act and rules. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs. However, the judgment clarified that members of the petitioner associations are not barred from seeking relief through the appellate mechanism available under Section 13 of the 2020 Act, should they feel aggrieved.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Mukhtar's younger son Omar arrested in forgery case
Lucknow: Umar Ansari, the younger son of gangster-turned-politician late Mukhtar Ansari, was arrested by Ghazipur police from Darul Shafa area of Lucknow late Sunday night. The arrest was made following the registration of a criminal case against him for forgery in Ghazipur. He was taken into custody and transported to Ghazipur for further proceedings. Umar Ansari was booked for allegedly attempting to fraudulently reclaim a property that had been confiscated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The property was earlier seized under Section 14(1) of the Act, having been linked to the criminal activities of Mukhtar Ansari, who was the former kingpin of the now-banned gang IS-191. Investigators said that Umar had filed a petition in the court to get the seized property released. However, during scrutiny of court documents, it was found that he had allegedly submitted forged papers bearing fake signatures of his mother, Afsa Ansari. Afsa is herself wanted in multiple cases and carries a reward of Rs 50,000 on her arrest. Officials believe the forgery was part of a calculated plan to gain unlawful advantage in the legal process. Upon discovery of the forged documents, police registered FIR number 245/2025 at Muhammadabad Police Station in Ghazipur. The charges against Umar fall under sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Senior police officials confirmed that Umar had been taken into custody and that further legal action was underway. This happens to be the sixth case lodged against him. The past five cases include charges of cheating, forgery, damage to public property, and violation of the poll code during the Vidhan Sabha elections of 2022. His elder brother MLA Abbas Ansari had already served two-year sentence in a three-year-old case related to a hate speech in which he allegedly threatened government officials on May 31, 2022 during election campaign. Abbas was later disqualified from the Uttar Pradesh Assembly. He has eight other cases in his name. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
