THE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS vs UTTARAKHAND REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Court
Uttarakhand High Court


2026:UHC:4094-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

th
25 May, 2026


RERA APPEAL No. 07 of 2026


The Vardhman Developers ------Appellant

Versus

Uttarakhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority and others

-----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-

Mr. I.M.Kuddusi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Deep
Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1
(through V.C.)
Mr. Ajar Rab (through V.C.) and Mr. Ankit Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent no. 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT: ( per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J. )
1 . Heard Mr. I.M. Kuddusi, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned
counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Monika Pant, learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Ajar Rab,
learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. The instant appeal has been filed against the
order of the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal,
Dehradun dated 29.04.2026, by which, the Appellate
Tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit 50% of
the amount payable to the allottees in pursuance of
1


2026:UHC:4094-DB
order of Uttarakhand Real Estate Regulation Authority
to ensure compliance of the provision of sub-section (5)
of Section 43 of the Real Estate Development and
Regulation Act, 2016, which reads as follows:-
“(5) Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision
or order made by the authority or by an adjudicating
officer under this Act may prefer an appeal before the
Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter.
Provided that where a promoter files an appeal
with the Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained,
without the promoter first having deposited with the
Appellate Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the
penalty, or such higher percentage as may be
determined by the Appellate Authority, or the total
amount to be paid to the allottee including interest
and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with
both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is
heard.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the RERA has not imposed any penalty on the
appellant and consequently, sub-section (5) of Section
43 would not be attracted. He further submits that the
appellant has not realized any amount from the
allottees and in the sale-deed, the only recital is that
the allottees would be entitled to use the common
parking. Therefore, according to him, the order passed
by RERA is illegal.

2


2026:UHC:4094-DB
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 submits that, in every case, where
any amount has been ordered to be refunded, whether
by way of penalty or otherwise, sub-section (5) of
Section 43 of the Act, would get attracted.

5. The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43
of the Act is in two parts. Earlier part of the provision
deals with the cases of penalty, where the pre-condition
for entertaining appeal is deposit of 30% of the penalty
or such higher percentage as may be determined by
the Appellate Tribunal. The second and the latter part
deals with any other amounts including interest or
compensation, imposed by the Tribunal and in such
cases, the same is required to be deposited as a pre-
condition for availing the remedy of appeal.

6. The present case is a case where the RERA
has recorded findings that the Appellant has realized
parking fees from individual allottees and has failed to
provide parking facilities to the allottees. Therefore, the
amount realized as parking fee along with the interest
has been ordered to be refunded. The present case
would be covered by the latter part of the proviso,
3


2026:UHC:4094-DB
whereunder any amount directed to be paid to the
allottees including interest and compensation is
required to be deposited as a pre-condition for availing
the remedy of appeal.

7. The operative part of the order of RERA in
respect of the refund of the parking fee to the allottees
is as below:
“The respondent no.1 i.e., Vardhaman Developers is
directed to refund to each of the allottees the entire
amount of money (car parking fee charged including
service tax or GST as the case may be) which has
been collected from them towards sale price for open
parking or stilt parking, as the case may be, within 45
days from the date of this order along with the
interest @ 10.85% to be calculated from the date of
payment to the date of this order. If the respondent
no.1 fails to comply this order within 45 days from the
date of this order, then further interest is to be paid
for the period 20.11.2025 to the date preceding the
date of actual payment. It would be the responsibility
of respondent no.1 to verify, on top priority, their
records and identify the allottees to whom car parking
space has been sold and the price charged against car
parking space so as to ensure compliance of this order
within specified time limit.”

8. We find that the Appellate Tribunal has, in
fact, been lenient to the appellant in directing deposit
of only 50% of the amount imposed by the Tribunal
4


2026:UHC:4094-DB
although the requirement in such cases is to deposit
the entire amount.

9. As regard, the submission made on merits of
the finding rendered by RERA, we refrain from making
any comment on the same as the correctness of the
said finding is still to be examined by the Appellate
Tribunal. We accordingly find no merit in the instant
appeal and the same is dismissed.


10. Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)




(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 25.05.2026
Kaushal

5