RERA Redevelopment Registration Exemption Applies Only If Original Project Didn't Need Registration: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the exemption from registration available for renovation, repair or redevelopment projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be claimed where the original project itself was required to be registered under the law.

Dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) and its Project Director, the court upheld interim orders of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA). The authority had held complaints filed by homebuyers of the Chander Kunj Army Towers project in Kochi to be maintainable.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that once a project is found to be mandatorily registrable under the Act, the exemption under Section 3(2)(c) is unavailable.

"When the original project itself is found to be mandatorily registrable under Section 3, the question of exemption as contemplated under Section 3(2)(c) would not arise.", it held.

The dispute arose from complaints filed by allottees of the Chander Kunj Army Towers project at Silver Sand Island, Vyttila. K-RERA passed a common interim order holding the complaints maintainable. AWHO challenged that order before the High Court.

AWHO argued that the project was entitled to the exemption available for renovation, repair or redevelopment projects. It contended that the complaints before K-RERA were not maintainable.

The allottees and the Union of India opposed the petitions. They argued that the project had already been found to require registration under the Act. According to them, no exemption could therefore be claimed.

The court noted that the issue of registration had already been examined in an earlier judgment involving the same project. In that decision, the High Court upheld K-RERA's direction requiring registration after finding that the project qualified as an ongoing project under the Act.

Referring to that earlier ruling, Justice Rahman observed that the exemption provision serves a limited purpose.

"This is because, the purpose of Section 3(2)(c) is only to grant exemption in respect of the projects, wherein original project never required registration, because the same was not an ongoing project as on the cut off date contemplated under the said provisions but the renovation, repair or re-development was necessitated after the cut off date.", the court explained.

The court concluded that once the original project was found to be mandatorily registrable, the exemption could not be invoked. Finding no reason to interfere with the interim orders passed by K-RERA, it dismissed the writ petitions.

The court, however, clarified that AWHO would be free to pursue any other remedies available in law.RERA proceedings can proceed as per law.

For Petitioners (The Army Welfare Housing Organisation and Suresh Christopher H.): Senior Advocate M. Ramesh Chander with Advocates Bejoy Joseph P.J., Govind G. Nair, Balu Tom, Bonny Benny and P.M. Rajagopal.

For Respondent (Union of India): Senior Panel Counsel V. Girishkumar

For Respondents (P.H. Joseph and Lt. Comdr. Daveed Paul): Advocate Jacob Mathew Manalil.

For Respondents (Jayakumar Paroor, Mavelil Raman Hema, Capt. Jones Alex, Annie Jones, Lt. Col. Susan Leena Joseph, Lt. Cdr. Tittu Mathew Joseph, Twinkle Tom, Lt. Cdr. N. Harish, Sreelakshmi S. and Sajie Shankar): Advocate K. Shaj.

For Respondent (Chander Kunj Welfare Maintenance Society): Advocates Jacob Mathew Manalil, Priya Elizabeth Babu and Hrishikesh Jayasarman.