Mumbai Real Estate Tribunal Flags Order Irregularities: A Closer Look

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has directed a detailed inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a recalled enforcement order issued by the state housing regulator, intensifying scrutiny over procedural safeguards within the real estate redressal framework.

The direction came during hearings in a long-running dispute linked to a delayed residential project in Mulund, where homebuyers challenged a subsequent order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The tribunal observed that judicial integrity and procedural transparency are central to maintaining public trust in quasi-judicial bodies overseeing housing disputes.

The case concerns a flat purchased in 2013 in a Mulund development, where possession was contractually due by the end of 2015. Following delays, the parties entered into consent terms in 2019 that provided for monthly compensation until handover. When the developer allegedly defaulted, the buyers initiated non-compliance proceedings. In late 2024, the adjudicating officer issued recovery warrants to enforce payment.

Complicating matters, the project was later taken over by another company under Section 15 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, after the original developer faced financial stress and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The successor entity challenged the execution process, contending that recovery action could not proceed against a party not originally impleaded in the complaint.

In September 2025, the regulator’s chairperson invoked inherent powers under internal regulations to recall and set aside earlier recovery directions. However, the appellate tribunal noted that two versions of the recall order dated a day apart appeared to exist, both digitally signed but containing variations in certain paragraphs. One version was reportedly not uploaded on the regulator’s official portal.

The tribunal further observed that the recall order appeared to have been passed without prior notice to affected parties and without listing in the cause list, even though related proceedings were pending before the adjudicating officer at the time. It held that the regulator cannot effectively re-adjudicate matters on merits where the statute provides a clear appellate remedy.

Legal experts say the case raises larger questions about the limits of inherent powers exercised by regulatory authorities. “The power to review or recall must be expressly provided by statute. It cannot be used to override established appellate mechanisms,” said a senior counsel familiar with real estate litigation. Others argue that tribunals do retain limited authority to correct procedural errors or prevent abuse of process.

For Maharashtra’s housing market, the episode underscores the importance of predictable and transparent dispute resolution under RERA. As homebuyers increasingly rely on regulatory enforcement to secure compensation and possession, confidence in procedural integrity remains essential.

The tribunal’s call for an internal investigation may now prompt closer examination of administrative protocols within the state regulator, a development likely to be closely watched by developers, lenders, and thousands of pending complainants across the state.