Adjudicating Officer Cannot Hear Complaints Seeking Project Development Reliefs: Haryana REAT

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an Adjudicating Officer under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot entertain complaints seeking directions for development works such as the construction of a boundary wall or roads along with compensation claims.

It ruled that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority.

The tribunal observed, "The Adjudicating Officer is vested with limited jurisdiction, primarily to adjudicate compensation under specific provisions of the Act. Therefore, such reliefs could not have been directly considered by the Adjudicating Officer."

A bench of Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan allowed appeals filed by St. Patricks Realty Private Limited against orders of the Adjudicating Officer.

The tribunal further observed, "The objection raised by the appellant-promoter regarding maintainability goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer. Such an issue ought to be decided at the threshold before proceeding further in the matter."

The dispute arose after the developer obtained the Occupation Certificate for the project in 2020 and offered possession in 2021. Most allottees took possession of their units in 2022 and were residing there when they filed complaints before the Adjudicating Officer in 2025. They sought directions for construction of a boundary wall, development of a 24-metre road and compensation for alleged structural defects under various heads.

During the proceedings, the developer sought dismissal of the complaints on the ground that they were not maintainable before the Adjudicating Officer. It argued that the complaints had not reached the stage where compensation could legally be adjudicated because the procedure prescribed under Rules 28 and 29 of the Haryana RERA Rules, 2017 had not been followed.

It also contended that reliefs relating to project development were within the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority and not the Adjudicating Officer. The Adjudicating Officer declined to decide the maintainability objection at the preliminary stage and held that all issues would be considered together.

Accepting these submissions, the tribunal held that the complaints combined reliefs relating to project development with compensation claims without following the prescribed procedure.

It ruled, "Even with regard to the claim of compensation on account of alleged structural defects, the law requires that the complaint must be filed and processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 28 and 29 of the Haryana RERA Rules, 2017. In the present case, the complaint combines multiple reliefs relating both to development works and compensation without following the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the complaints could not have been considered by the Adjudicating Officer."

The tribunal further held that the Adjudicating Officer had exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law. It also held that the Adjudicating Officer failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by not deciding the issue of maintainability at the appropriate stage.

The tribunal observed, "The Adjudicating Officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law and has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in deciding the issue of maintainability at the appropriate stage."

Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and held that the complaints filed before the Adjudicating Officer were not maintainable.