Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds RERA Order in Housing Project Dispute

Published: March 06, 2026 | Category: Real Estate
Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds RERA Order in Housing Project Dispute

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) directing the recovery of money from developers in a housing project at Kasauli. The court observed that recovery proceedings cannot be stalled merely because the project land has later vested in the state government.

While deciding the petition titled Pawan Wasant Borle vs Union of India and others, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua ruled that once a RERA order granting monetary relief has attained finality, the authorities are legally bound to enforce it through the statutory recovery process.

Counsel for the state, R. Kaul, told UNI that the HC in a 17-page verdict upheld the recovery proceedings initiated under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The court said the award passed by RERA could not be halted on the ground that the land related to the project has subsequently been ordered to vest in the state government under separate revenue proceedings.

“Merely on the ground that land with respect to which the petitioner had claimed redressal before RERA has now been ordered to be vested in the state government, the recovery proceedings for implementing the final order passed by RERA cannot be put on hold,” the court stated.

The court further emphasized that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for recovery of arrears, the authorities must follow it strictly without deviation. The case relates to a housing project, Aamoksh at Kasauli, where the petitioner had booked a unit for Rs 88 lakh. An agreement to sell was executed in 2015, and the buyer paid about Rs 78 lakh, but possession of the unit was never delivered. Aggrieved by the delay, the petitioner approached the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, which in 2021 allowed the complaint and directed the promoters to refund the amount along with interest.

When the developers failed to comply with the order, RERA issued a recovery certificate under Section 40(1) of the RERA Act, enabling recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. Acting on the certificate, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar, Solan. However, the proceedings were halted in September 2023 after the District Collector ordered that the land in question vests in the state government under Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

Allowing the petition, the High Court held that the RERA order had attained finality and must be implemented strictly in accordance with the recovery mechanism provided under law. The court directed that the recovery proceedings continue so that the petitioner receives the refunded amount along with applicable interest from the developers.

Stay Updated with GeoSquare WhatsApp Channels

Get the latest real estate news, market insights, auctions, and project updates delivered directly to your WhatsApp. No spam, only high-value alerts.

GeoSquare Real Estate News WhatsApp Channel Preview

Never Miss a Real Estate News Update — Get Daily, High-Value Alerts on WhatsApp!

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the RER
Act? A: The RERA Act, or the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, is a law in India that aims to protect the interests of homebuyers and promote a transparent, healthy, and sustainable real estate market.
2. What was the main issue in the Pawan Wasant Borle vs Union of Indi
case? A: The main issue was the recovery of funds from developers in a housing project at Kasauli, where the petitioner had booked a unit and paid the majority of the amount but did not receive possession of the unit.
3. Why did the Himachal Pradesh High Court uphold the RER
order? A: The court upheld the RERA order because it ruled that recovery proceedings cannot be stalled merely because the project land has vested in the state government under separate revenue proceedings.
4. What was the amount involved in the housing project dispute?
The petitioner had booked a unit for Rs 88 lakh and paid about Rs 78 lakh, but did not receive possession of the unit.
5. What was the final decision of the High Court?
The High Court directed that the recovery proceedings continue so that the petitioner receives the refunded amount along with applicable interest from the developers.