DDA Wins Major Relief in Housing Project Case: Rs 1 Crore Penalty Set Aside

New Delhi: In a significant development, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) in Delhi has set aside a Rs 1-crore penalty imposed on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The penalty was initially imposed for the DDA's failure to register a housing project, but the REAT has now ruled in favor of the DDA, stating that the project was completed before the RERA for Delhi was established in 2017.

The relief came after the DDA argued that the Rohini project was completed and operational long before the RERA Act came into force. The DDA's legal team, represented by advocates Anil Sharma and Vrinda Kapoor Dev, submitted a clarification from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, stating that pre-2017 projects do not require RERA approval. They also provided a completion certificate and proof that sewerage services had been handed over to the Delhi Jal Board in August 2009.

In its recent order, the REAT bench stated, 'The documents being sought now were not available when the authority passed the orders. Since these documents are crucial to the case, and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to send the matter back to the authority to review the complaint again within two months.' This decision effectively quashes RERA's order imposing the Rs 1-crore cost on the DDA and overturns the direction to file a criminal complaint against the agency via its vice-chairman for violating provisions of the real estate law.

Earlier, in January, RERA had faulted the DDA for not registering its 'Residential Plotting Project / Scheme, Sector-7, Rohini,' labeling it an ongoing project and alleging 'wilful default.' RERA had also directed that all future sales be suspended until registration was complete. The DDA contested this decision, emphasizing that the project was completed in 2009, well before the RERA Act came into force on May 1, 2017.

The resident welfare association (RWA) of the housing society opposed the DDA's appeal, claiming that the project remains ongoing under RERA and challenging the evidential value of the DDA's documents. The RWA argued that the completion certificate, based on the 1982 layout plan, did not account for the revised 1985 plan. However, the REAT has left it to RERA to examine both the DDA's submissions and the RWA's counterclaims.

This decision by the REAT is a major relief for the DDA and sets a precedent for similar cases involving pre-2017 projects. It highlights the importance of clear regulations and the need for regulatory bodies to consider the timelines and historical context of projects when making decisions. The DDA can now focus on other developmental activities without the burden of an unjustified penalty, while RERA will have to re-evaluate its stance on such projects in the future.