Technical Member Mandatory: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside REAT Order Passed By Two-Member Bench

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal after finding that it was passed by an improperly constituted Bench.

The court held that the Tribunal decided the case without the participation of a Technical Member, a requirement mandated by law. Such an order, it said, cannot stand.

“As per the provisions of Section 45 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal must consist of the Chairman and two members, one of whom must be a Technical Member,” the Court held. The impugned order, it added, “cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”

The ruling was delivered by Justice Hirdesh on February 6, 2026, in an appeal filed under Section 58 of the 2016 Act by the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The challenge was to a Tribunal order dated June 25, 2025.

The dispute relates to a real estate project named “The Address.” Briddhi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. had applied for its registration before RERA on June 12, 2018.

Noting certain deficiencies, RERA issued a notice in July 2018 and and then a reminder in December 2018.

However, after the deficinecies remained unresolved and after it found that plots were being sold without registration. It initiated suo motu proceedings in 2019 and passed an ex parte order on January 3, 2020.

The order imposed penalties, including confiscation of fees, freezing of accounts, and restrictions on the sale of plots.

The developers later, challenged the ex parte order before the Appellate Tribunal. Partly allowing the appeal, It set aside the confiscation of fees and fines but upheld the restriction on sale of plots. The developers were retained in the defaulters' list, and RERA was directed to restart the registration process.

The defciencies remained unresolved even after second rounds of registration process and RERA rejected the registration application on April 29, 2022, invoking Section 5 of the Act.

The developers again approached the Appellate Tribunal. On June 25, 2025, the tribunal set aside RERA's rejection order and remitted the matter, while directing the developers to file a fresh application and deposit the requisite fees. This led to the present appeal.

Before the High Court, RERA argued that the tribunal's order was invalid due to improper composition, contending that Section 45 requires a Chairman and two members. The developers countered that Section 43 permits a Bench with one Judicial Member and one Administrative or Technical Member.

The High Court noted at the outset that the issue of composition would affect all other grounds raised in the appeal. On examining the record, it found that the impugned order was passed only by the Chairman and a Judicial Member, with no Technical Member involved.

Relying on G.S. Enterprises v. Yogesh Agrawal, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 45 is mandatory. “The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The order impugned, thus, stands set aside,” it held.

The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a properly constituted bench. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the dispute. The parties have been directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on March 16, 2026.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava

For Respondents: Advocate Shri Raja Girraj Sharma