Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Haryana Notification Vesting RERA Adjudicating Officer with Collector Powers for Recovery

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.08.2026

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Haryana Notification Vesting RERA Adjudicating Officer with Collector Powers for Recovery

On April 24, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/S Vatika Limited vs. Union of India and Others. The case centered on the legality of a Haryana government notification dated May 11, 2024, which delegated the powers of a Collector under the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, to the Adjudicating Officer of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) for executing recovery certificates.

The Controversial Notification

The impugned notification vested the Adjudicating Officer, appointed under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), with the powers of a Collector to execute recovery warrants and certificates issued by HRERA. It also transferred all pending recoveries from District Collectors to the Adjudicating Officer.

Legal Challenge

M/S Vatika Limited challenged the notification, arguing that:

1. The notification was contrary to Section 40(1) of RERA, which prescribes that orders for payment of interest, penalty, or compensation are to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, but does not authorize the Adjudicating Officer to execute orders passed by other authorities.
2. The notification violated the statutory scheme, which assigns distinct adjudicatory and executory roles to the Regulatory Authority, Appellate Authority, and Adjudicating Officer.
3. The notification was inconsistent with Rule 27 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, which provides that each authority must enforce its own orders, and only in case of inability, refer the matter to a civil court for execution.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the relevant statutes and rules:

• Section 40(1) of RERA: Specifies that orders for payment of interest, penalty, or compensation by the Adjudicating Officer, Regulatory Authority, or Appellate Authority are recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
• Section 81 of RERA: Allows the Authority to delegate powers, but not in a manner that overrides the statutory separation of functions.
• Rule 27 of the 2017 Rules: Mandates that each authority (Adjudicating Officer, Regulatory Authority, Appellate Tribunal) must enforce its own orders as if they were civil court decrees, and only refer to civil courts if unable to execute.

The Court found that the notification improperly merged the distinct executory jurisdictions of the various authorities, allowing the Adjudicating Officer to execute orders passed by the Regulatory Authority and Appellate Authority, which was not permitted by law.

Key Findings

1. Separation of Powers: The Court emphasized that the Adjudicating Officer, Regulatory Authority, and Appellate Authority have separate adjudicatory and executory fields. Each must execute its own orders.
2. Invalid Delegation: The notification’s delegation of Collector powers to the Adjudicating Officer for executing all HRERA orders was held to be ultra vires (beyond legal authority).
3. Quashing of Notification: The Court quashed the Haryana government’s notification, restoring the statutory scheme where each authority is responsible for executing its own orders.
4. Clarification on Execution: The Court clarified that if an order is not complied with, the respective authority may recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, following the procedure in the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, and Rule 27 of the 2017 Rules.

Implications

• For Homebuyers and Developers: The judgment ensures that the statutory process for recovery of dues under RERA is followed, preventing administrative shortcuts that could undermine legal safeguards.
• For Authorities: HRERA and its officers must adhere strictly to the statutory framework, with each authority executing only its own orders.
• For the State Government: The government must respect the separation of powers and cannot delegate execution powers in a manner inconsistent with the law.

Conclusion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the separation of powers among authorities under RERA. The quashing of the Haryana notification restores clarity and legality to the process of executing recovery certificates in real estate matters, ensuring that each authority operates within its legally defined role.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com