Lack Of Written Allotment Or Agreement Itself Cannot Oust RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the absence of a written allotment document or agreement does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) over a complaint concerning an alleged real estate transaction.

A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed, “The word “aggrieved person” used under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 and under Rule 35 of the Rules, 2017, who can file complaint is very wide, therefore, only because no written document to show the allotment of any real estate or any agreement between the parties in itself will not oust the jurisdiction of the RERA."

The dispute arose from a complaint by Y.P. Goel and Associates alleging that Fortune Resources had entered into an oral agreement for allotment and sale of Shop No. J-03, measuring 1,280 sq. ft., in Rama World at High Street, Swarn Bhoomi, Raipur, for ₹75 lakh.

The complainant alleged that it paid ₹5 lakh on December 31, 2020, ₹10 lakh on February 3, 2021 and another ₹10 lakh on September 6, 2022. The order records that the first two payments were made through cheques.

It further alleged that possession was not handed over and no sale deed was executed in its favour. The complainant claimed that the ₹25 lakh allegedly paid towards the shop was returned after about three years.

A legal notice was issued on April 5, 2024. Fortune Resources denied that any oral agreement had been entered into and also denied that the shop had been allotted to Y.P. Goel and Associates.

RERA dismissed the complaint on July 31, 2024, holding that there was no written agreement between the parties and no clear evidence showing that sale consideration had been paid for the alleged transaction. It also held that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Y.P. Goel and Associates then approached the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). On April 4, 2025, the tribunal set aside RERA's order, holding that an oral agreement could be considered under the RERA framework and that the complainant was an “aggrieved person”. It remitted the matter to RERA for fresh consideration.

Fortune Resources challenged the tribunal's order before the high court under Section 58 of the RERA Act. It argued that merely depositing money did not make Y.P. Goel and Associates an “allottee” under Section 2(d), which defines an allottee as a person to whom a plot, apartment or building is allotted, sold or transferred by the promoter.

The company contended that there had to first be an application or request, its acceptance by the promoter, and a consequential allotment. It also argued that photocopies of balance-sheet entries could not establish the alleged oral agreement or a contractual obligation concerning the shop.

The high court found that RERA had focused on the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) without considering Section 31. The provision allows any aggrieved person to file a complaint before RERA for a violation or contravention of the Act, its rules or regulations.

The bench noted that the pleadings disclosed a transaction involving the deposit of money in connection with the alleged allotment and sale of the shop.

“From the aforementioned facts of the case it is apparent that there was transaction between the parties of depositing of amount with respect to allotment and sale of real estate (shop) as mentioned in the complaint.”, it noted.

The bench noted that RERA's order did not discuss whether an enquiry under Rule 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 had been initiated.

It held that RERA ought to have followed the procedure for ordering production of documents or seeking evidence before deciding the complaint.

Dismissing Fortune Resources' appeal, the high court found no substantial question of law involved in the appeal for admitting it.

It directed RERA to decide the complaint in accordance with the directions issued by the tribunal in paragraph 55 of its order and in accordance with law.

For appellant (Fortune Resources and Properties LLP): Advocates Ankit Singhal, Ashish Mittal.

For respondent (Y.P. Goel and Associates): Advocate Manay Nath Thakur.

For respondent (Rama Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Arpit Agrawal.