Punjab & Haryana High Court: RERA Appeal Should Be Decided on Merits, Not Dismissed on Limitation

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

Date: 28.09.2026

Punjab & Haryana High Court: RERA Appeal Should Be Decided on Merits, Not Dismissed on Limitation

In an important procedural order concerning remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Punjab & Haryana High Court permitted M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to withdraw its writ petition challenging orders of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Significantly, considering that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ proceedings, the High Court requested that if the statutory appeal was filed within 60 days from the date of its order, the Appellate Tribunal should decide it on merits and not dismiss it merely on the ground of limitation.

At the same time, the High Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute, leaving both sides free to raise their substantive pleas before the Appellate Tribunal.

The order provides a useful illustration of the interaction between constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 and the statutory appellate mechanism under RERA.

Background of the Case

• The matter arose in CWP-8634-2023, M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, before a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikas Bahl and Justice Divya Sharma. The decision was delivered on 31 August 2026.
• The petitioner had approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders connected with proceedings before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram.
• The first challenge concerned an order dated 27 February 2023, whereby the Authority had dismissed a rectification application filed by the petitioner under Section 39 of RERA.
• The rectification application itself related to an earlier order dated 20 January 2020.

₹30.48 Crore RERA Penalty Was Under Challenge

• The underlying dispute was financially substantial.
• The petitioner had challenged the order dated 20 January 2020 imposing a penalty of approximately ₹30.48 crore, stated to represent 10% of the estimated cost of the project, in exercise of powers under Section 59(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
• In its writ petition, the company sought quashing of that order on grounds including that it was allegedly ultra vires, beyond the scope of the Act, without legal competence and illegal. These were the petitioner’s pleaded grounds; the High Court did not adjudicate their merits.
• This distinction is important: the final High Court order should not be read as setting aside or affirming the ₹30.48 crore penalty.
• Instead, the case ultimately turned on the appropriate forum in which the challenge should be pursued.

Respondents Raise the Objection of Alternative Statutory Remedy

• During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition.
• They submitted that the impugned orders were appealable, and therefore contended that the writ petition should not be entertained.
• The High Court’s order dated 19 August 2026 records this objection and also records that counsel for the petitioner sought time to respond to it.
• This brought the statutory appellate remedy under RERA directly into focus.

Petitioner Opts to Withdraw Writ and Approach Appellate Tribunal

• Subsequently, senior counsel appearing for Orris Infrastructure submitted that the company should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal against the impugned orders.
• There was, however, an important practical issue.
• The petitioner had already spent considerable time pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court. It therefore requested that if the statutory appeal was filed within two months, the Appellate Tribunal should consider the matter on merits rather than reject the appeal solely because of limitation.
• The petitioner also pointed out that after the original order dated 20 January 2020, an application under Section 39 of RERA had been filed and that application was eventually decided on 27 February 2023.

State Seeks Liberty to Contest the Appeal on Merits

• The State did not seek to prevent the petitioner from pursuing the appellate remedy.
• However, counsel appearing for the State requested that corresponding liberty should be preserved for the respondents to oppose the appeal on merits if such an appeal was filed.
• This became relevant to the manner in which the High Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition.

High Court Permits Withdrawal and Grants 60-Day Window

Taking the circumstances into consideration, the Punjab & Haryana High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal against both impugned orders:

• Order dated 20 January 2020; and
• Order dated 27 February 2023.

The Court further provided that if the petitioner filed the appeal within 60 days from 31 August 2026, the Appellate Tribunal was requested to decide the appeal on merits and not dismiss it on the ground of limitation.

This procedural protection is the central operative feature of the High Court’s order.

High Court Did Not Decide the ₹30.48 Crore Penalty on Merits

• An especially important point for correctly understanding and reporting the judgment is that the High Court did not adjudicate the legality of the penalty itself.

The Court expressly stated:

• “It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case…”
• Both parties were left free to raise all available pleas on merits, and the Appellate Tribunal was directed to consider those pleas in accordance with law.
• Therefore, it would be inaccurate to report this case as one in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court “quashed” the ₹30.48 crore penalty or held that the penalty was illegal.
• The substantive controversy remained open for determination by the statutory appellate forum.

Section 39 Rectification and Statutory Appeal: An Important Procedural Distinction

• The case also highlights an important distinction between a rectification proceeding and a substantive statutory appeal under the RERA framework.
• The petitioner had initially pursued rectification under Section 39 against the original order. The rectification application was decided on 27 February 2023.
• Thereafter, the company challenged both the original and rectification orders through writ proceedings.
• When the respondents pointed to the availability of an appellate remedy, the petitioner ultimately chose to withdraw the constitutional challenge and approach the Appellate Tribunal.
• For regulated entities, developers and litigants under RERA, this procedural sequence demonstrates the importance of identifying the correct remedy at an early stage.

Alternative Remedy and Writ Jurisdiction

• The order is also useful from the broader perspective of administrative and constitutional law.
• Articles 226 and 227 confer substantial constitutional jurisdiction upon High Courts. At the same time, where legislation creates a specialised statutory appellate mechanism, the availability of that remedy can become an important consideration when a writ petition challenges an appealable regulatory order.
• In the present case, the High Court did not pronounce upon the maintainability objection as a contested legal issue. Instead, after the objection was raised, the petitioner itself sought permission to withdraw the writ and pursue the statutory appeal.
• Accordingly, the decision should not be overstated as laying down an absolute proposition that a writ petition can never be maintained against an appealable RERA order.

Limitation Protection: A Significant Procedural Relief

• The most consequential aspect of the order for the petitioner is the protection concerning limitation.
• The High Court recognised the fact that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy and provided a defined route back to the statutory appellate mechanism.
• The protection, however, was conditional: the appeal had to be filed within 60 days from the High Court’s order dated 31 August 2026.
• The order therefore illustrates how a court may, depending upon the circumstances before it, facilitate transition from an incorrectly or alternatively pursued remedy to the statutory appellate forum without allowing the matter to fail solely on limitation.

Practical Lessons for Developers and RERA Litigants

• The order offers several practical lessons for parties challenging regulatory decisions under RERA.
• First, the availability of a statutory appellate remedy should be examined immediately before invoking writ jurisdiction.
• Second, a rectification application should not automatically be treated as a substitute for a substantive appellate challenge. The scope and purpose of each remedy must be separately evaluated.
• Third, where a party has already spent considerable time pursuing another legal remedy, limitation becomes a critical litigation-management issue. Any withdrawal should therefore be accompanied, wherever legally supportable, by an appropriate request concerning the treatment of limitation before the statutory forum.
• Finally, where a High Court expressly states that it has not examined the merits, neither party should treat the disposal order as determining the validity or invalidity of the underlying regulatory action.

Significance for RERA Enforcement Proceedings

• The case is particularly noteworthy because the underlying order involved a substantial ₹30.48 crore penalty under Section 59(1).
• Yet the High Court consciously left the substantive issues untouched.
• The ultimate legality of the penalty, the petitioner’s challenges to the RERA Authority’s exercise of power, the effect of the Section 39 rectification proceedings, and other substantive pleas therefore remain matters for consideration by the appropriate appellate forum.
• The case consequently demonstrates an important distinction between procedural relief and substantive relief.
• Orris Infrastructure obtained an opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal without having that appeal rejected solely on limitation if filed within the Court-prescribed period. It did not, through this order, obtain a judicial determination setting aside the underlying penalty.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order in M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Another is an important procedural development in RERA litigation.

Faced with an objection that the impugned RERA orders were appealable, the petitioner opted to withdraw its writ petition and pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The High Court permitted that course and provided an important limitation safeguard: if the appeal was filed within 60 days from 31 August 2026, the Appellate Tribunal was requested to decide it on merits rather than dismiss it solely as time-barred.

Equally significant is what the Court did not decide. It expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving both sides free to raise their substantive contentions before the Appellate Tribunal. The decision is therefore a useful reminder for developers and other RERA stakeholders that choice of remedy, appellate strategy and limitation management can be as important as the substantive challenge itself.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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