Revenue Recovery Officer Cannot Decide RERA Certificate Rectification Pleas: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, on 30 October, held that a Revenue Recovery Officer of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) cannot decide applications seeking rectification of recovery certificates, as the power to pass a final decision rests with the Secretary, RERA. The officer can only hear the parties and submit a report or proposal to the Secretary.

Justice Jaspreet Singh allowed petitions filed by the developer of Golf View Apartments, challenging orders passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer, RERA, Lucknow, rejecting its applications for rectification of recovery certificates. The Bench held:

“Nevertheless, the aforesaid office order dated 22.09.2025, by any stretch, cannot be construed as to confer or delegate any power to the Revenue Recovery Officer to give a verdict or decide the application.”

Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner company had developed Golf View Apartments in Sushant Golf City, Lucknow. Following complaints by home buyers, the RERA, by an order dated 23 May 2022, directed the company to hand over possession within 45 days and pay interest for the delay at 1% above the Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) determined by the State Bank.

Subsequently, the RERA issued a recovery certificate on 8 July 2025. The company applied for its rectification, contending that interest had been calculated for an incorrect period. The Revenue Recovery Officer rejected the application.

Senior Counsel Jaideep Narain Mathur, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the officer had exceeded the authority delegated to him, which was limited to examining the matter and submitting a report to the Secretary.

Counsel for the home buyers and RERA, argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. They also submitted that the officer had merely found that the recovery certificate required no correction.

The Court examined two office orders issued by the RERA. Under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority can rectify mistakes apparent from the record in its orders. Section 81 permits the Authority to delegate its powers and functions, except the power to make regulations.

By an office order dated 8 August 2024, the RERA delegated the power to rectify recovery certificates to its Secretary. A subsequent office order dated 22 September 2025 provided that the Secretary would place such applications before the Revenue Recovery Officer, who would hear the parties, examine the matter and submit a proposal for the Secretary's final decision.

Reading the two office orders together, the Court held that the Revenue Recovery Officer's role was limited to recording the rival contentions and submitting a report or proposal to the Secretary. The officer could not independently decide whether a recovery certificate required rectification.

It observed that the order under challenge was neither a report nor a proposal for the Secretary's consideration. It said:

“The texture and tenor of the order impugned passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer, RERA, is neither a report nor a proposal, rather it is an expression of opinion on merits with trappings of an order, which otherwise would have been passed by the Secretary, RERA.”

Further, the Bench rejected the argument that the officer was required to submit a proposal to the Secretary only when he found that rectification was necessary, observing that the contention was “wholly without substance”.

The home buyers had relied on a Division Bench judgment in M/s K.D.P. Buildwell Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others. However, the Court held that the judgment, delivered in 2020, was inapplicable because the two office orders governing the Revenue Recovery Officer's role had not been considered by that Bench.

Justice Singh held that the availability of an appellate remedy before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal could not justify an order passed in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the officer.

Therefore, he set aside the impugned orders in all the petitions and remitted the matters for fresh consideration. He also directed the parties to appear before the Revenue Recovery Officer on 18 November 2026, who must hear them and submit a report to the Secretary, RERA, for a final decision.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions.