Gujarat High Court on RERA Jurisdiction, Completed Projects, and Scope of Adjudicating Officer’s Powers

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

Date: 05.09.2026

Gujarat High Court on RERA Jurisdiction, Completed Projects, and Scope of Adjudicating Officer’s Powers

A recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiren Sureshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat has clarified crucial aspects of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), particularly regarding the jurisdiction of RERA authorities and the rights of homebuyers and promoters. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, legal arguments, and the implications for real estate stakeholders.

Background of the Case

• Project: Landmark Harmony, a residential complex of 120 flats developed by Landmark Probuild Pvt. Ltd. in Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
• Parties:
  • Petitioner: Hiren Sureshbhai Patel, Director of Landmark Probuild Pvt. Ltd.
  • Respondent No. 3: Shyamsundar Ghasitasingh Karhana (homebuyer)
• Dispute:
  • An agreement to sell (Banakhat) was entered in 2014 between the company and the respondent and his wife.
  • The respondent failed to pay the full consideration amount.
  • Initially, a consumer complaint was filed and later withdrawn; subsequently, a complaint was filed before the RERA Adjudicating Officer seeking compensation for non-delivery of the flat.

Key Legal Issues Raised

1. Jurisdiction of RERA Authorities:
   • Whether the RERA Adjudicating Officer had the authority to order possession of the flat and compensation, especially when the project had received a completion certificate before RERA came into force.
2. Proper Parties to the Complaint:
   • The complaint before RERA was filed only against the Director, not the company or the co-signatory (wife), raising issues of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
3. Scope of Relief under RERA:
   • Whether the Adjudicating Officer could grant relief beyond compensation, such as ordering possession, under Section 71 of the Act.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Applicability of RERA to Completed Projects

• Completion Certificate Pre-RERA:
  • The project received its completion certificate on 27.09.2016, before RERA’s commencement on 01.05.2017.
  • Section 3(2)(b) of RERA exempts such projects from registration and the Act’s rigors.
  • The Court cited the Bombay High Court’s Neelkamal Realtors and Supreme Court’s New Tech Promoters decisions, confirming that RERA does not apply to projects completed before its enforcement.

2. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Adjudicating Officer

• Limited to Compensation:
  • Section 71 of RERA restricts the Adjudicating Officer’s powers to adjudging compensation for violations under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19.
  • Reliefs like possession or specific performance must be sought before the Regulatory Authority, not the Adjudicating Officer.
  • The complaint format (Form-B) and rules reinforce this separation of powers.

3. Defective Complaint Due to Mis-joinder/Non-joinder

• Necessary Parties Not Included:
  • The original agreement involved both the respondent and his wife as buyers and the company as seller.
  • The RERA complaint was filed only against the Director, omitting the company and the wife, making the complaint defective.

4. Change in Relief Sought

• Consumer Forum vs. RERA:
  • The respondent initially sought withdrawal and refund before the Consumer Forum, but later sought compensation and possession before RERA.
  • The Court held that the scope of relief cannot be expanded in this manner, especially when the Adjudicating Officer lacks jurisdiction for possession orders.

Final Judgment

• The High Court quashed the RERA Adjudicating Officer’s order, holding it was beyond jurisdiction and based on a defective complaint.
• The petition by the Director was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Key Takeaways for Real Estate Stakeholders

1. RERA’s Applicability:
   • Projects with completion certificates before 01.05.2017 are not subject to RERA’s registration or its dispute resolution mechanisms.
2. Jurisdictional Clarity:
   • The Adjudicating Officer under RERA can only award compensation, not order possession or specific performance.
   • Reliefs like possession must be sought before the Regulatory Authority, following the correct procedure and forms.
3. Proper Party Inclusion:
   • Complaints must include all necessary parties as per the original agreement to avoid dismissal on technical grounds.
4. Consistency in Relief Sought:
   • Applicants cannot change the nature of relief sought across different forums without following due process.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the importance of understanding the scope and limitations of RERA, both for homebuyers and developers. It highlights the need for precise legal strategy, correct party inclusion, and adherence to procedural requirements when seeking remedies in real estate disputes. The decision also provides clarity on the non-applicability of RERA to completed projects and the distinct roles of the Adjudicating Officer and Regulatory Authority.

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: Gujarat High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com