In a recent case before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, an appeal filed by Ram Avtar Nijhawan against M/s Neo Developers was dismissed. The appellant challenged an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority but failed to meet the requirements for rectification within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal, comprising Justice Rajan Gupta as Chairman, Shri Inderjeet Mehta as Member (Judicial), and Shri Anil Kumar Gupta as Member (Technical), found that the application for rectification was filed after the expiration of the limitation period and sought to make substantive changes to the original order, which was not permissible.
Ram Avtar Nijhawan filed an appeal against M/s Neo Developers, contesting an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The original order, dated 05.09.2019, had disposed of the complaint and subsequent execution proceedings, concluding the matter. However, on 24.01.2022, after the two-year limitation period specified by Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 had lapsed, the appellant filed an application for rectification. The application sought to change the start date of construction from 12.02.2013 to 15.12.2015.
The Tribunal carefully examined the facts and legal provisions and concluded that the appellant's application for rectification was misconceived from the outset. The application was filed after the prescribed time limit and did not challenge the original order dated 05.09.2019. Section 39 of the Act allows for rectification of mistakes apparent on record but explicitly prohibits amendments to the substantive part of the order. Changing the start date of construction would substantively alter the original order and increase the respondent's liability, leading to the reopening of ancillary issues.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's counsel failed to provide a clear explanation of the scope of Section 39 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original order of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. No costs were awarded in this case.
This case highlights the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits and the limitations of seeking rectification under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Parties must carefully consider their options and present their case within the stipulated timeframe to avoid complications and potential dismissal of their appeals.
The Tribunal's decision ensures that rectification requests cannot be used to substantially alter an order after the conclusion of proceedings. This approach maintains the finality and stability of decisions while preventing unnecessary delays and reopening of related issues.
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of Ram Avtar Nijhawan's appeal against M/s Neo Developers emphasizes the significance of complying with prescribed time limits and respecting the boundaries of rectification requests. By upholding the original order and preventing substantive changes, the Tribunal affirms the importance of maintaining the integrity and finality of decisions. This case serves as a reminder for parties involved in real estate disputes to carefully assess their options and ensure timely action within the prescribed legal framework.
Note: The information provided in this article about Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the Appeal No.171 of 2019 before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.