The Delhi Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has set aside the ₹1 crore penalty imposed by the Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allegedly failing to register a housing project in Rohini. The tribunal ruled that the DDA’s project was completed before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into effect and thus did not require registration under RERA.
Background of the Case
The dispute stemmed from a Delhi RERA order in January, which accused the DDA of “wilful default” for not registering its Residential Plotting Project/Scheme at Sector-7, Rohini. RERA had labelled the project as “ongoing” and imposed a penalty of ₹1 crore, while also directing that future sales be suspended until proper registration was obtained.
The authority further instructed the filing of a criminal complaint against the DDA through its vice-chairman for violation of provisions of the real estate law.
DDA’s Defense and Appeal
Challenging the RERA order, DDA, represented by advocates Anil Sharma and Vrinda Kapoor Dev, argued that the project had been completed well before May 1, 2017, when RERA came into force in Delhi. The agency submitted a series of documents to support its claim, including a completion certificate and official correspondence showing that sewerage services had been handed over to the Delhi Jal Board in August 2009.
DDA also presented a clarification from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, confirming that projects completed before 2017 do not require RERA registration.
REAT’s Observations and Order
After reviewing the appeal, the REAT bench noted that certain crucial documents were not available at the time when RERA passed its order, and these needed to be examined to ensure justice.
“The documents being sought now were not available when the authority passed the orders. Since these documents are crucial to the case, and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to send the matter back to the authority to review the complaint again within two months,” the tribunal stated.
Accordingly, REAT quashed the ₹1 crore penalty imposed on DDA and overturned the direction to initiate a criminal complaint against the agency’s vice-chairman. The matter has now been remanded to RERA for reconsideration, allowing the Authority to re-examine the submissions made by both parties.
RWA’s Opposition and Counterclaims
The Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of the concerned housing society opposed DDA’s appeal, claiming that the project remains ongoing under RERA definitions. The RWA argued that the completion certificate produced by DDA was based on the 1982 layout plan, while the actual development followed a revised 1985 plan, rendering the certificate incomplete and invalid.
The RWA also challenged the authenticity and timing of DDA’s evidence, contending that several infrastructure components were not fully developed even years after the project’s initiation.
Next Steps and Legal Implications
By setting aside RERA’s earlier order and sending the case back for fresh review, the REAT has emphasized the need for due consideration of all documentary evidence before holding a public authority liable for violations under RERA.
RERA has been instructed to re-evaluate the case within two months, taking into account both DDA’s documents and the RWA’s objections.
This decision underscores the principle that RERA provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to projects that were completed before the law came into effect. It also highlights the need for careful scrutiny in cases involving government housing projects and legacy developments predating RERA’s enforcement.
Impact on Future Cases
The REAT’s order could have far-reaching implications for similar disputes involving public authorities and pre-RERA housing projects. It reinforces that completion certificates and official handover records hold significant weight in determining whether a project falls under the purview of RERA.
Legal experts note that the case clarifies the non-retroactive nature of RERA compliance, potentially setting a precedent for other government development bodies facing similar penalties for older projects.
