HC quashes Haryana governmmet’s order to grant RERA recovery powers, ET RealEstate
GURUGRAM: The 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. 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”. 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.
