RERA Appeal Remedy Cannot Be Bypassed To Avoid Pre-Deposit Requirement: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to entertain a real estate developer's challenge to a Haryana RERA refund order, holding that a promoter/developer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy merely to avoid the pre-deposit requirement.

A Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri was hearing a petition filed by Advance India Projects Limited against a Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing it to refund over ₹1.02 crore to two allottees in its “AIPL Joy Gallery” commercial project in Gurugram.

“Merely because filing of the appeal by petitioner would entail a pre-deposit of some amount cannot be a ground for the petitioner to bypass the alternate remedy, which is statutory as well as efficacious,” the Court observed.

The dispute arose after the two allottees, who had been provisionally allotted a retail shop unit in November 2023, approached the regulator alleging that the developer had failed to pay the assured monthly returns.

On March 26, 2025, Haryana RERA directed the company to refund ₹1,02,01,348 after deducting 10% of the sale consideration. It also awarded interest at 11.10% on the balance amount from the date of surrender.

Instead of filing an appeal, the company moved the High Court. It argued that despite repeated communications, the complainants had never executed the agreement to sell.

The company also contended that possession of the unit had already been offered in May 2024. It argued that the regulator wrongly granted a refund despite the project being complete.

To support maintainability of the writ petition, the developer relied on Supreme Court decisions including IREO Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd, Godrej Sara Lee Ltd and Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

The complainants opposed the petition, arguing that the Real Estate Act provides a complete statutory appellate mechanism for challenging such orders.

Agreeing, the High Court said the appellate tribunal is the designated first appellate forum and is empowered to examine both factual and legal issues arising from orders passed by the regulator.

"Appellate Tribunal is a forum dedicated to hearing first appeals. Any person dissatisfied with the decision, direction or order of the adjudicating body can file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within the period specified in the 2016 Act. Appellate Tribunal has been vested with the same powers as are vested with the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), though, it is not bound with the procedure laid down under the CPC. It is guided by the principles of natural justice and has the power to examine the validity of the orders passed by the adjudicatory body,” the bench ruled.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd, the Court held that the pre-deposit condition for promoters cannot be regarded as harsh or onerous.

It distinguished the judgments cited by the developer, holding that those decisions turned on their own facts and did not assist the petitioner in the present case.

Without examining the legality of the refund order on merits, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable while reserving liberty to the company to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

For Petitioner (M/s Advance India Projects Limited): Senior Advocate Anand Chibbar; Advocates Sandeep Verma and Ateevraj Sandhu.

For Respondent (State of Haryana and others): Additional Advocate General Deepak Bhardwaj and Advocate Himmat Singh