This post is a judgment digest of Haryana RERA Panchkula Complaint Ultratech Township Developers Pvt Ltd which was dismissed by Adjudcating Officer (AO) Panchkula since the matters stands finalized by RERA Authority and no appeal was preferred. Thus the court decided the same matter cannot be reopened again by applicant at this point of time.
Also Read- Adjudicating Officer RERA Panchkula RERA Punjab
Now let’s have the judgment-
Baldev Singh &Anr. v. Ultratech Township Developers Pvt Ltd.
Judgment Digest on Haryana RERA, Panchkula
- The present post will cover and give an overview of the case Baldev Singh & Anr v. Ultratech Township Developers Pvt Ltd. The post is mainly regarding the maintainability of the case before the Adjudicating officer of the Haryana RERA, Panchkula as the order for the suit has been already decided by the Haryana RERA, but due to another similar case the complainants have filed the suit again stating that the Haryana RERA was not having jurisdiction of the particular case and thus the order passed by Haryana RERA didn’t have the jurisdiction regarding the same, hence the current case is filed before the Adjudicating officer to exempt the previous order decided by Haryana RERA.
Also Read- Register Your Complaint Online With Rera Panchkula
- The present complaint holds its chief issue from the reference case of Sameer Mahawar v. M.G. Housing Pvt Ltd. decided by the Hon’ble Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh wherein it has been stated that the cases regarding relief for refund along with interest and compensation do not lie within the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulating Authority but with the Adjudicating Officer, thus taking relevance from the abovementioned case this complaint was filed stating the complainant demanded for the same and the order given by Haryana RERA is out of jurisdiction and cannot be executed and has to be heard before the Adjudicating officer. The whole reason behind filing of this complaint revolves around stating whether the judgment given by Haryana RERA is valid and within the jurisdiction and if not, then whether the present complaint is maintainable before the Adjudicating officer of Haryana RERA, Panchkula.
Also Read- Case of forfeiture of amount by Builder RERA Panchkula
- Facts of the case-
Court’s Name- IN THE COURT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER OF HARYANA RERA, PANCHKULA
Petitioner-
- Baldev Singh & Anr.
Respondent-
- Ultratech Township Developers Pvt Ltd.
No. of hearings- 02
Date of judgment: 12.03.2020
Timeline of events-
Also Read- Quick Facts Haryana RERA Panchkula & Punjab RERA Authority
- 11.2018- vide order given by Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula
Petitioner’s Arguments-
The petitioner, namely Baldev Singh and Another, have filed this complaint regarding the annulment of the decision dispensed by the Haryana RERA, Panchkula on 27.11.2018. The complainants are contending that the respective authority didn’t have the jurisdiction for deciding of the cases which dealt with the relief for refund along with interest and compensation. The complainant had originally demanded for refund of the amount paid by them to the respondent but this plea of complainant was rejected by the Haryana RERA and instead the respondent was instructed to handover the possession of complainant’s unit along with the compensation accounted for the delay in delivery of possession.
Also Read- Compensation by Haryana Rera Panchkula Authority?
After the order was passed, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh gave decision on the case Sameer Mahawar v. M.G. Housing Pvt Ltd. that cases involving relief for refund along with interest and compensation are not to be decided by the Real Estate Regulating Authority but by the Adjudicating officer of the respective RERA. Thus, as the complainant’s case was in regard with similar relief, it was contended that the Haryana RERA didn’t have the jurisdiction to try this case and the order should not be executed as per the order of Haryana RERA. Thus, the complainant filed the complaint before the Adjudicating officer and should also be maintainable before the officer.
Also Read- Refund Refused by Rera Panchkula or Gurugram? Try This!
Respondent’s Arguments-
The Respondent, Ultratech Township Developers Pvt Ltd. had possession of the unit of the complainant which was not returned in time, thus it led the complainant to take its suit before the Haryana RERA where it was pleaded by the complainant that he wanted a refund of the sum of amount given by the complainant to the respondent. The plea was rejected and the respondent was asked to return the possession of unit and pay compensation for the delay in delivery of the possession. As the complainant has filed the suit before the Adjudicating officer taking recent reference from the case of Sameer Mahawar v. M.G. Housing Pvt Ltd. that the order given by Haryana RERA was out of jurisdiction to which the respondents have replied that the present complaint is not maintainable before the officer as the order vide dated. 27.11.2018 has attained its finality as no other appeal has been filed by the either of the parties and the case taken for reference does not apply to the present case, thus it can also not be taken as a valid reference for maintainability of this particular complaint.
Order of the Court- Delay Compensation in Hrera Panchkula
After examination of both the parties, the present complaint is filed before the Adjudicating officer with regard to the same unit and same relief of refund. Thus, as per the principles of “res judicata” no one should be provoked for the same cause of action twice and the original case has reached its finality of litigation. Apart from that the complainant had originally accepted the fact that the Haryana RERA had the jurisdiction for trying the particular suit. Thus, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Adjudicating officer and is hereby dismissed.
Also Read- Refund and Compensation Under Rera Panchkula and Punjab
- There major issue of the complaint was regarding the order dispensed by the Haryana RERA which was questioned by the complainant after referring to the case of Sameer Mahawar v. M.G. Housing Pvt Ltd. decided by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh which stated that Haryana RERA didn’t have the jurisdiction to try the cases involved with relief of refund and they were to be dealt by the Adjudicating officer, thus the complaint was filed before the Adjudicating officer to sought the relief of refund by the complainant. There was no other violation of law, but just the question of jurisdiction which had come up after the abovementioned judgment by the Appellate tribunal.
Also Read- Procedure Steps of Complaint in Rera Panchkula Authority
- List of Judgements involved-
- Sameer Mahawar v. M.G. Housing Pvt Ltd.
- As per the contentions and judgments presented by the complainant, there were certain findings of the court which stated that as per the principle of “res judicata” once an order given with regard to the same issue and same relief, the court cannot reopen the case with same subject matter and same relief and as far as the reference case of Sameer Mahawar v. M.G. Housing Pvt Ltd. is concerned, only the litigants/parties of the case will be bind with this decision as the judgment is right in personam and not everyone will be bind by this case even though having similar facts. Thus, the Real Estate Regulating Authority has the jurisdiction over such cases and the complaint is not maintainable before the Adjudicating officer.
Also – How to Check Whether Project Is Registered With Rera Panchkula
- Thus, as we look into the case of Baldev Singh &Anr. v. Ultratech Township Developers Pvt Ltdit can be concluded that the present complaint was not having any merit and was solely based on one reference case decided by the Appellate Authority. Apart from that the order of the particular case was decided on 27.11.2018 and thus had reached its finality and no appeal was also filed by either of the parties. The present complaint questioned the jurisdiction of the Haryana RERA, which was further dismissed by the adjudicating officer stating that the case could not be reopened with same subject matter and same relief of refund and the referred case was not applicable on other cases and was restricted to that particular case only.
Also Read- Execution of Rera Panchkula Orders
For case specific advice, please contact Best Haryana RERA Panchkula Lawyers of Chandigarh Mohali Zirakpur Kharar Derabassi Baltana for Delay in Possession, Refund, Interest & Compensation cases.
This post is written by Rhea Banerjee.
More on 99888-17966.
