Last Updated on March 13, 2026 by Satish Mishra
Vatika Limited HighCourt Ruling on RERA Execution wherein Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Haryana Government Notification Granting Collector Powers to HRERA Adjudicating Officer.
Vatika Limited HighCourt Ruling
In an important decision affecting the enforcement mechanism under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside a Haryana Government notification that granted Collector-like recovery powers to the HRERA Adjudicating Officer.
The ruling came in the case M/s Vatika Limited v. Union of India & Others (CWP-14937-2024) decided on 24 April 2025.
Background of the Case
The Haryana Government issued a notification dated 11.05.2024 through the Chief Secretary.
Through this notification, the Adjudicating Officer of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) was given powers of a Collector under the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 for the purpose of executing recovery certificates issued by HRERA.
A real estate developer, M/s Vatika Limited, challenged this notification before the High Court.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued that:
- The notification was illegal and arbitrary.
- It exceeded the statutory scheme under RERA, 2016.
- Execution of HRERA orders is already governed by Section 40 of the RERA Act, which provides a specific mechanism.
- The State Government could not bypass the statutory procedure by granting Collector powers to the Adjudicating Officer through an executive notification.
Legal Issue Before the Court
The key question before the Court was:
Can the State Government authorize the HRERA Adjudicating Officer to act as a Collector under the Haryana Land Revenue Act for recovery of amounts ordered under RERA?
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined the framework of:
- Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016 – which deals with recovery of interest, penalty and compensation.
- Section 81 of the RERA Act – which allows delegation of powers by the Authority.
- Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 provisions regarding recovery as arrears of land revenue.
The Court observed that:
- RERA already provides a specific statutory method for execution of its orders.
- Delegation of powers under Section 81 cannot override or alter the statutory scheme.
- The State Government cannot create additional enforcement powers through a notification that are not contemplated under the Act.
High Court Decision
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the notification was unsustainable in law.
The Court therefore:
- Allowed the writ petition
- Quashed the Haryana Government notification dated 11.05.2024
However, the Court clarified that:
- Orders passed by HRERA, the Appellate Authority, or the Adjudicating Officer remain valid.
- Such orders can still be executed through the mechanism provided under Section 40 of the RERA Act.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is significant because it:
- Reinforces the statutory framework of RERA enforcement.
- Prevents executive expansion of powers beyond the Act.
- Ensures that recovery of penalties, interest, and compensation under RERA must follow the procedure laid down in the statute.
For real estate developers, buyers, and regulatory authorities, the judgment clarifies that execution powers cannot be altered through administrative notifications.
Key Takeaway
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that statutory procedures under RERA must be strictly followed, and executive notifications cannot grant additional coercive powers like those of a Collector unless the statute expressly allows it.
More info on 99888-17966.
