RERA Tribunal Order Unsustainable Where Heard by One Bench And Pronounced By Another: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a judgment of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, holding that a case heard by one bench cannot be decided by another bench if one of its members did not hear the arguments. The court said such a judgment is unsustainable in law and goes against fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that the bench that hears a matter must also decide it. It added that views of members who heard the case cannot be taken after a judgment has already been signed and delivered by another bench.

"A judgment in a matter heard by a three member Bench cannot be authored and delivered by a two member Bench, one member of which had not heard the submissions in the matter. Views of the other members. who had heard submissions in the matter cannot be taken after the judgment has been signed and delivered by another Bench", it said.

The ruling came on petitions filed by AR Landcraft LLP, which had challenged a December 2025 order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissing multiple appeals. The appeals were heard by a bench comprising the chairman, a judicial member, and a technical member.

Arguments were concluded, and judgment was reserved. When the decision was delivered, the technical member was replaced by an administrative member who had not heard the case.

The High Court said it failed to understand how the administrative member dealt with and rejected submissions without having heard them. It noted that the tribunal later entertained a review application even after being informed that the developer had approached the High Court under Article 227.

The review order directed that the views of the original members be obtained later. The tribunal attributed the error to the registry, saying the case had been listed before the wrong bench.

The High Court rejected that explanation.

“Even if the registry had committed an error in listing the matter for delivery of judgment before a wrong Bench, it was for the members of the Bench to apply their minds before signing and delivering the judgment,” the court said.

It held that the defect could not be treated as a mere procedural irregularity.

“Delivery of judgment by a member who has not heard submissions in the appeals is not a mere irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal which does not affect the merits of the case, rather such a judgment is nullity in the eyes of law, as it has been passed in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, which require the Bench hearing a matter to decide the same", it said.

The High Court set aside both the tribunal's judgment and the order passed on the review application. The appeals were remanded to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. The court directed that the matter be heard by a bench other than the one that delivered the present judgment and be decided expeditiously.