Maharashtra REAT Raises Red Flags Over MahaRERA's Controversial Order

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has raised serious concerns over the manner in which an order was passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA). The Tribunal emphasized that the integrity of judicial proceedings is of “paramount importance” and necessitates a thorough investigation.

The observations were made while hearing an appeal filed by Pramod Ashtekar, represented by Advocate Nilesh Gala, and another allottee against Nirmal Lifestyle Limited and Ricardo Construction Pvt. Ltd. The dispute revolves around a delayed housing project in Mulund.

The REAT stated, “We are of the considered view that the orders passed by the authorities are a result of re-adjudicating issues that were already considered by the Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, the Authority cannot use its inherent power to hear the matter again on merits, especially when an express provision of appeal is available under the Act.”

The appellants had purchased Flat No. 1302 in the project “ACE and Matchpoint” in Mulund in 2013 for Rs 1.02 crore and had paid over Rs 81 lakh. According to the agreement for sale dated November 23, 2013, possession was to be handed over by December 2015. However, the developer failed to deliver the possession as promised.

Alleging non-delivery, the allottees approached MahaRERA. The dispute was amicably settled in 2019 through consent terms, under which Nirmal Lifestyle agreed to pay Rs 60,535 per month as compensation from May 1, 2017, until possession was handed over. Despite receiving about Rs 9 lakh, the developer allegedly breached the consent terms, leading to non-compliance proceedings.

Subsequently, Ricardo Construction took over the project under Section 15 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), after Nirmal Lifestyle faced financial issues and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The allottees then initiated execution proceedings to recover dues. The Adjudicating Officer allowed the non-compliance application in November 2024 and issued recovery warrants against Ricardo Construction.

However, Ricardo Construction later filed a complaint under Regulation 39 of the MahaRERA (General) Regulations, 2017, invoking the Authority’s inherent powers. In September 2025, an order was passed by the Chairperson of MahaRERA recalling and setting aside the earlier execution and recovery orders. The Appellate Tribunal noted that two versions of the order, dated September 9 and September 10, 2025, existed, both digitally signed but with variations in certain paragraphs. One version was not uploaded on the MahaRERA website and was allegedly obtained from the Tahsildar’s office.

The Tribunal observed that the order appeared to have been passed without notice to the parties and without listing the matter in the cause list. It also noted that the complaint was pending before the Adjudicating Officer at the time. The Tribunal stated, “Integrity of judicial proceedings is of paramount importance to ensure trust of litigants and the public on judicial forums,” adding that the matter warrants a full investigation by the Authority by examining all relevant records leading to the issuance of two separate orders.

The appellants argued that the power of review is not inherent and must be specifically conferred by statute. They relied on multiple Supreme Court rulings to contend that inherent powers can be exercised only sparingly and cannot override statutory provisions for appeal or revision.

Ricardo Construction, in its defense, claimed that the execution cannot proceed against a party not originally impleaded in the complaint and that tribunals possess inherent power to recall orders to prevent abuse of process or correct procedural errors.