Gujarat High Court
Priyaranjan Shiv Balak Roy vs Prop. Of R.V. Infrastructure , Bihola ... on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/RERAA/8/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/RERA APPEAL NO. 8 of 2025
==========================================================
PRIYARANJAN SHIV BALAK ROY
Versus
PROP. OF R.V. INFRASTRUCTURE , BIHOLA RANVIRSINH AMARSINH &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DARSHAK N CHHAYA(12526) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NAISHADHKUMAR U CHHAYA(13348) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. By the present RERA Appeal, the appellant impugns the order dated 11.03.2024 in Appeal No.15 of 2024 whereby the RERA Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the appellant upholding the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the RERA Authority in Complaint No.CMP/Gandhinagar/221218/000148 rejecting the complaint of the appellant.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the respondent No.1 had floated a scheme of residential plots at Village Dashela, District - Sub-District Gandhinagar. Thereafter, the appellant had constructed a house over the same through the Builder. He submits that the appellant thereafter did not receive any Building Use Permission from the respondent No.1 and since the construction was made dehors any sanctioned plan, the Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority ["GUDA" for short] has issued notice to the appellant and thereafter, the construction came to be demolished by the GUDA. It is the grievance of the appellant Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:30:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/RERAA/8/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined that the Builder had made unauthorized construction and the appellant had to suffer for the same. The appellant has, therefore, filed a complaint with the Gujarat RERA Authority. He submits that the RERA Authority has further come to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 had failed to register the project named "Swastik Vihar". Therefore, under the said Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 ["Act" for short], the respondent No.1 has been fined to Rs.25,000/-. He submits that the RERA Appellate Tribunal while upholding the findings of the RERA Authority has erroneously rejected the appeal of the appellant. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be interfered with and the appeal be allowed.
3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant, perused the documents on record and considered the submissions.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant herein had purchased an open plot from the respondent No.1 along with common interest of the ownership of the internal roads with undivided share in the common plots and roads. The complaint as well as the record is silent on the issue as to who has constructed the property on the plot No.35 purchased by the appellant. The authority held that the Building Use Permission was obtained vide permission letter dated 26.10.2015.
5. Further, it is observed that in case of any deficiency in the service or any other obligation of the promoters, Section 14(3) of the Act provides a time limit for a period of 5 years. In the present case, the complaint has been filed by the appellant after a period of 5 years and therefore also, the liability of the promoters ceases to Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:30:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/RERAA/8/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined exist. The conclusions arrived at by the RERA Appellate Tribunal as well as RERA Authority are just and proper and in accordance with the Act. It has been rightly held that no action can be taken against the promoters under the provisions of the RERA Act. No infirmity can be attached to the impugned orders.
The present appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 23:30:16 IST 2025