The Authority observed that: Compensation proceedings under RERA must strictly comply with the statutory procedure prescribed under the RERA Act and Rules. In the Panchkula HRERA, compensation and execution cases against Movish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (such as Uma Khanna v. Movish Realtech, Complaint/Execution No. 2502 of 2022 / 2591 of 2023) revolve around execution proceedings and the maintainability of compensation awarded for delayed possession. [1, 2, 3]
The Adjudicating Officer held that:
- Compensation cannot be granted mechanically
- Mandatory procedural safeguards under:
- Section 31
- Section 35
- Section 71
- Rule 28
- Rule 29 of Haryana RERA Rules
must first be satisfied before awarding compensation.
Key RERA Compensation Guidelines
- Delay Interest vs. Compensation: Under RERA, delay interest is typically awarded by the Authority for delayed possession, while compensation (for mental agony, physical harassment, or prospective earnings) is generally determined and granted by the Adjudicating Officer HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, PANCHKULA. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Calculation: The prescribed interest rate for delays is evaluated based on the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) plus 2% Estate – Haryana RERA. [1, 2]
- Compensation Components: Homebuyers who face unreasonable delays can be awarded itemized payouts, which often include litigation expenses, transportation charges, mental agony, and deprivation of prospective earnings Haryana Real Estate. [1, 2, 3]
📌 Background of the Dispute
The matter arose during execution proceedings relating to:
✔ A compensation order passed earlier by the Adjudicating Officer under RERA.
The developer/judgment debtor challenged the executability of the compensation order on the ground that:
- Mandatory statutory procedure had not been followed before awarding compensation.
The objection specifically questioned:
- Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer
- Maintainability of the compensation complaint.
⚖️ Core Legal Issue Before the Authority
The primary question examined was:
Whether a compensation order passed without prior adjudication of violations by the Regulatory Authority under Section 31 read with Section 35 RERA could be legally executed?
🏛 Key Findings of the Authority
🔹 Compensation Under RERA Requires Prior Determination of Violations
The Authority undertook a detailed analysis of:
- Sections 31, 35, 71 & 72 of the RERA Act
- Rule 28 and Rule 29 of Haryana RERA Rules.
It held that:
✔ Regulatory Authority must first:
- Conduct inquiry
- Establish violations by promoter
- Pass findings regarding contravention of RERA provisions
Only thereafter:
✔ Compensation proceedings before Adjudicating Officer can validly proceed.
🔹 Adjudicating Officer Cannot Independently Decide Violations
A major legal principle clarified in the order was:
Adjudicating Officer is empowered to determine quantum of compensation, but not to independently adjudicate violations without prior findings of the Regulatory Authority.
The Authority observed that:
- Rule 28 and Rule 29 create separate procedural mechanisms
- Both provisions must be harmoniously interpreted.
🔹 Order Passed Without Jurisdiction Is Void
The Authority relied upon multiple Supreme Court and High Court precedents on:
✔ Jurisdictional error
✔ Nullity of orders
✔ Executability of void decrees.
It held that:
An order passed in violation of mandatory statutory procedure is void ab initio and can be challenged even during execution proceedings.
🔹 Executing Forum Can Examine Jurisdictional Defects
The Authority clarified:
- Normally executing courts cannot go behind decrees
- However, an exception exists where:
✔ Order is passed without jurisdiction
✔ Mandatory provisions are violated.
Thus:
- The objection to executability was held maintainable.
🔹 Civil Procedure Code Held Applicable in Execution
Another important finding was:
✔ Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can apply in execution proceedings under RERA for enforcing orders in the manner of civil court decrees.
The Authority discussed:
- Section 40 RERA
- Rule 27 Haryana RERA Rules
- Execution powers akin to civil courts.
❌ Final Outcome
The Authority concluded that:
✔ Earlier compensation order suffered from procedural illegality
✔ Mandatory RERA procedure had not been followed
✔ The order was void and non-executable.
Accordingly:
- Execution petition was disposed of as non-executable.
📌 Key Legal Takeaways
✔ Compensation under RERA requires strict procedural compliance
✔ Regulatory Authority must first determine violations
✔ Adjudicating Officer cannot bypass statutory framework
✔ Void orders can be challenged even at execution stage
✔ CPC principles may apply in RERA execution proceedings
🧑⚖️ Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is highly significant for:
- RERA compensation litigation
- Execution proceedings
- Jurisdictional objections under RERA
- Builders and homebuyers involved in compensation disputes
It clarifies that:
“Procedural compliance under RERA is not a mere formality — it goes to the root of jurisdiction.”
🔍 Read on these Keywords:
Haryana RERA compensation order
RERA execution proceedings judgment
Adjudicating Officer jurisdiction RERA
Void order non executable RERA
Section 71 Section 72 RERA explained
CPC applicability in RERA execution
More on 99888-17966
