Preloader
Disable Preloader

Insights of RERA & MAHARERA

Insights of RERA & MAHARERA

RUSTAM PHIROZE MEHTA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS (2021)

LEGAL SUBJECTS - Real Estate Law, Statutory Interpretation, Consumer Protection Law, Administrative Law, Contract Law

CITATION OF THE CASE - 

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 3221 OF 2020.

FACTS -

a)   The petitioner booked a property in Marvel Sigma's project and approached Maharashtra RERA due to the developer's failure to comply with payment obligations and possession timelines.  RERA issued a recovery certificate (12 April 2019) for ₹17.45 crore owed by the developer. The Collector and Tahsildar were directed (15 April 2019 and 4 June 2019) to recover this as "arrears of land revenue," but they failed to act. The petitioner filed a writ petition (No. 3221 of 2020) seeking mandamus to enforce recovery. Marvel Sigma and its director, Vishwajeet Jhavar, filed false affidavits and concealed assets (including 18 group entities) to evade recovery. The developer challenged RERA's jurisdiction, arguing recovery should follow civil court procedures under Section 40(2) of RERA, which deals with the enforcement of orders or directions issued by the adjudicating officer, Regulatory Authority, or Appellate Tribunal. 

       ISSUES -

     Whether the Collector/Tahsildar was obligated to execute RERA's recovery certificate as "arrears of land revenue"? Whether Marvel Sigma and its director committed contempt by filing false affidavits and concealing assets? Whether recovery under RERA must follow civil court procedures (as argued by the developer)?

      DECISION BY COURT -

    Directed the Collector/Tahsildar to immediately recover dues as "arrears of land revenue" under RERA. The court noted wilful non-compliance with disclosure orders and imposed strict timelines for asset disclosure. The High Court rejected the developer’s argument, holding that RERA’s recovery mechanism (via state authorities) is valid under Section 40(2).

      IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE -

     This case underscores the primacy of RERA in resolving real estate disputes and sets a robust precedent for enforcing homebuyers’ rights against non-compliant developers.

      Compiled by Adv. Bincy Benny, Research and Training Admin, ATPA.

Share: