BIMALENDU PRADHAN Vs. BIMALENDU PRADHAN
LAWS(ORI)-2020-7-1
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on July 01,2020

Bimalendu Pradhan Appellant
VERSUS
Bimalendu Pradhan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.R. Sarangi, J. - (1.) Bimalendu Pradhan, complainant before Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhubaneswar, has filed W.P.(C) No. 8158 of 2019 seeking following relief:- "1. Direct the Opposite Party No.2- Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal to discharge its statutory functions under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 till the effective functioning of Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal as per Section 45 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016. 2. Direct the Opp. Party No.1 to establish the office of the Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, and appoint its Judicial and Administrative Members within a period of one month." W.P.(C) No. 11863 of 2019 has been filed by a private limited company, which is a builder and promoter of real estate, seeking following relief:- "It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the Opp.Parties and after hearing the parties further be pleased to stay the Execution case No. 20/2019 pending before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority till admission of the appeal bearing No. 1 of 2019 pending before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Cuttack and for which act of kindness petitioner shall be as in duty bound every pray." Similarly, W.P.(C) No. 3029 of 2020 has been filed by a builder and promoter of real estate with the following relief:- "It is therefore humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the opposite parties, and after hearing the parties further be pleased to quash the notices dt. 02/07/2019 as at Annexure-4 series."
(2.) The factual matrix of the case in W.P.(C) No. 8158 of 2019 is that the petitioner had filed a complaint case before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhubaneswar (in short "RERA") being Complaint Case No.55/2018 against a real estate builder, namely, M/s. Vipul Limited, Bhubaneswar alleging violations of several provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short "the Act") and, as such, the possession of the flat booked by him was not provided even after lapse of considerable time, as specified in the agreement. After hearing, the RERA by order dated 12.06.2018 allowed the complaint of the petitioner and issued several directions to the builder. Challenging the said order, the builder, M/s. Vipul Limited, Bhubaneswar preferred statutory appeal before the appellate tribunal, i.e., the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal vide Appeal Case No. 7 (RE)/2018. But the said appeal could not be taken up for hearing, as because the designated tribunal suo motu refused to take up appeal matters or register fresh appeal cases on the pretext that the Chairperson of the regular Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has been appointed. 2.1 Similarly, the fact in W.P.(C) No. 11863 of 2019 is that the opposite party no.1-Asis Panda filed a complaint before the RERA with a prayer to refund the amount deposited by him, along with the compensation claimed to the tune of Rs.28,73,600/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.18,23,600/-. The said complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 110 of 2018. Pursuant to notice, the builder- present petitioner- filed objection raising question of limitation and maintainability of the complaint petition and contended that the private limited company is ready to give possession of the flat to the complainant-opposite party no.1. But the RERA allowed the complaint case on 30.11.2018 and directed the petitioner to refund the payment of Rs.18,23,600.00 along with interest. Against that order the petitioner already preferred an appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which has been registered as Appeal No. 01/2019, but the same could not be taken up because of non-functional of the tribunal and no effective order could be passed. Consequentially, the complainant filed Execution Case No. 20 of 2019 before the RERA for execution of the order passed by the very same authority. 2.3 So far as the fact in W.P.(C) No. 3029 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioner is a real estate company from whom the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 seek for allotment of flats. As the same could not be done, opposite parties no. 3 and 4 filed complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 163/2018, before the RERA, alleging non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2016 and consequentially claimed for allotment of flat and payment of interest for delay in completion of the project. On consideration of the same, the RERA allowed such complaint case, vide order dated 27.02.2019, against which though appeal lies to the appellate tribunal, but due to non-functioning of the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 10139 of 2019, which was dismissed on 19.06.2019 on the ground that statutory remedy have been provided under the Act, 2016. Against the said order the petitioner filed W.A. No. 302 of 2019, which is pending. But in the meantime, the petitioner has already preferred statutory appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. As the appellate tribunal is not functioning, immense difficulties have been caused for adjudication of the matter in proper perspective.
(3.) Taking the facts in all the three writ petitions into account, the sum total of the grievance made by the petitioners in their respective writ petitions is that due to non-functioning of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, they are facing difficulties, for which they have approached this Court by filing these writ applications. In other words, though the writ petitions have been filed with different cause of actions, but essence is the non-functioning of the Tribunal. Since in all the three writ petitions the petitioners have sought for similar nature of relief, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.