HC strikes down Haryana notification giving HRERA officers power to recover dues
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down a Haryana government notification that gave Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s (HRERA) Adjudicating Officers the powers to recover dues like a Collector. The court ruled that this move was not permitted under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and violated the established legal process.
The notification, issued on May 11, 2024, had empowered HRERA’s Adjudicating Officers to recover amounts such as interest, penalty, and compensation directly, as if they were civil court decrees. Challenging this, the petitioner argued that such powers could not be given to Adjudicating Officers because the Real Estate Act clearly states that dues are to be recovered as arrears of land revenue – a process that must be carried out by designated revenue officials, not HRERA officers themselves.
Accepting the petitioner’s arguments, the High Court ruled that orders for payment passed by HRERA authorities — whether relating to compensation, penalty, or interest — must be enforced strictly under the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, and not treated like court decrees.
The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice H.S. Grewal passed the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Vatika Limited against the Union of India and other respondents.
Senior advocates Ashok Aggarwal and Anand Chhibbar, with counsel Vaibhav Sahni and Venket Rao, appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain represented the Union of India.
The court made it clear that the government must amend the rules if needed and assign proper revenue officials to handle the enforcement of these dues.
The court found that the delegation of powers to HRERA’s Adjudicating Officers was legally flawed. It observed that while the Real Estate Act provides different roles for Regulatory Authorities, Adjudicating Officers, and Appellate Tribunals, it does not allow Adjudicating Officers to enforce penalties or compensation by themselves. Their role is limited to holding inquiries and deciding the amount of compensation — not enforcing it.
The court also rejected the State’s argument that powers under Section 27 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act could be used to allow such a delegation. It asserted that enforcement and adjudication are two distinct functions and must remain separate.
During the hearing, the court also took critical view of a previous Single Bench decision that had wrongly allowed enforcement of HRERA orders like civil court decrees. It emphasised that Rule 27 of the Haryana Rules framed under the Real Estate Act, 2017, clearly provides that unpaid amounts are to be recovered through land revenue recovery procedures — involving steps like arrest, attachment of property, and auction — and not through methods applicable to civil decrees.
The court finally quashed the Haryana’s notification. It ruled that recovery of unpaid penalties, interest, and compensation must strictly follow the procedure of recovering land revenue arrears under the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, and Rule 27 of the Haryana Rules of 2017.
It also clarified that different authorities created under the Real Estate Act — whether Regulatory Authorities, Adjudicating Officers, or Appellate Tribunals — have distinct jurisdictions. While they can pass orders imposing financial liabilities, the recovery must follow the unified enforcement system provided by the law, and not by giving direct execution powers to any authority beyond what the law permits.
Haryana Tribune