Aditya Niwas Developers and Colonizers vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5406 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010286832026
======================================================
Aditya Niwas Developers and Colonizers through its Partner Niraj Kumar,
male, aged about 47 years, S/o- Late Satya Deo Narayan Singh, resident of
Road No.-25-c, Satya Deo Niwas, Rajiv Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Patna.
2. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, through its Secretary, having its office at
4th and 6th Floor, Bihar State Building Construction Corporation, Shastri
Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwash Vijeta,
Ms.Priyanka Kumari, Advocates.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shyam Babu Prasad, Standing Counsel (4)
For RERA : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
05-11-2026 Heard Mr. Bishwash Vijeta, learned counsel for the
petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Priyanka Kumari, learned
counsel, Mr. Shyam Babu Prasad, learned Standing Counsel-4
for the State and Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned counsel
representing the RERA.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):-
“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction, including a writ in the nature of
Certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 08.01.2026 and the
consequential Form-D dated 16.02.2026 issued by
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
2/42
Respondent No. 2 in relation to the Petitioner's
proposed project, namely, "CHHABILCHANDRA
ENCLAVE", on the ground that the said impugned
order and Form-D, purportedly issued on account
of alleged non-compliance of notice dated
18.12.2025, are wholly without jurisdiction,
ultravires the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in excess
of the powers conferred upon the Authority, and in
gross violation of the Bihar Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, and
the applicable Regulations of 2024.
(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction, including a writ of Certiorari,
quashing the impugned Notice dated 18.12.2025
issued by the learned Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, Bihar, being wholly without jurisdiction,
in excess of the powers conferred upon it, and in
gross violation of the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Bihar
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017, and the Regulations framed thereunder in
the year 2024.
(III) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction, including a writ of
Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to
forthwith declare and treat the Petitioner's real
estate project as deemed registered under Section 5
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, in accordance with law and in light of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
3/42
the authoritative observations and ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh
Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Larsen &
Toubro Limited, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1750, and further to provide the Petitioner with the
requisite web-portal login credentials, including
user ID and password, for operational access
under the Act.
(IV) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order/orders, direction/directions in favor of
the Petitioner as your Lordships may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The petitioner, Aditya Niwas Developers &
Colonizers, a partnership firm acting through its partner Niraj
Kumar, is the promoter of a proposed G+3 residential real estate
project named “Chhabilchandra Enclave” on Plot No. 1323(P),
Mauza Dhanaut, Danapur, Patna. The Patna Municipal
Corporation sanctioned the building map and layout of the
project on 21.02.2024 (Annexure P-3). On 19.06.2025, the
petitioner filed an online application bearing No.
RERAP291201800136-5 before the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, Bihar (Respondent No. 2), seeking registration of the
project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (for short, “the Act, 2016”) (Annexure P-1). On
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
4/42
30.06.2025, Respondent No. 2 issued a set of five queries to the
petitioner, and the petitioner replied on 03.07.2025, complying
with them and furnishing a reply on one query, which concerned
the cooperative society documents (Annexure P-2 series). A
further set of queries were raised on 10.10.2025, which the
petitioner answered on 30.10.2025.
4. On 18.12.2025, about six months after the
application was filed, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice under
Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, 2016, proposing to reject the
application on the ground that three documents had not been
furnished: (i) a copy of the bye-laws of Rajiv Nagar Sahkari
Grih Nirman Sahayog showing provisions, if any, permitting the
society to authorise multi-storied or apartment construction; (ii)
approval from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, expressly
permitting conversion of the allotted land from use for a
residential house to a multi-storied apartment; and (iii) copies of
any amendment or supplementary deed modifying the
conditions of the original Sale Deed of 1982, if executed
(Annexure P-2). The petitioner was called upon to appear on
26.12.2025. By its reply dated 25.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), the
petitioner stated that the society’s bye-laws already permit
construction of buildings, that a No Objection Certificate had
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
5/42
been issued by the society dated 24.01.2023, the Office of the
Registrar, Co-operative Societies does not issue such NOCs, and
no supplementary deed was required.
5. The hearing fixed for 26.12.2025 could not be
taken up for want of a Bench and was held on 08.01.2026. On
that date, the petitioner’s counsel prayed for thirty days to file
the documents, and the Authority granted time till 05.02.2026,
directing that the application would be rejected if the documents
were not submitted (Annexure P-4). By Form ‘D’ dated
16.02.2026, Respondent No. 2 intimated the rejection of the
application for non-furnishing of the same three documents
(Annexure P-5).
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an
application was submitted for the registration of its proposed
real estate project, "CHHABILCHANDRA ENCLAVE," on
09.06.2025. The respondent Authority entertained and
scrutinized this application, raising its first set of four queries on
30.06.2025, approximately three weeks after submission.
Further, the petitioner actively participated in the administrative
process, submitting a detailed reply and requisite documents on
03.07.2025, which satisfied queries nos. 1 and 3. Despite this,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
6/42
the Authority issued successive queries on 16.07.2025 and
10.10.2025, to which the petitioner promptly responded on
18.07.2025, and 30.10.2025, respectively. He further submits
that its continuous cooperation and responses to these queries
cannot be construed as a waiver of its statutory rights, nor can
administrative correspondence retrospectively erase the
application date or indefinitely enlarge the statutory time-limit
prescribed by the legislature. Ultimately, the Authority issued a
notice proposing rejection on 18.12.2025, passed an order on
08.01.2026, and issued a consequential Form-D on 16.02.2026,
long after the prescribed statutory period had expired. It is
submitted that Section 5(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) mandates the Authority to
either grant or reject an application within a strict 30-days
period. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Larsen & Toubro Limited v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024:AHC:160155-DB) , which
categorically held that the Authority cannot undertake a hair-
splitting exercise to ask for documents beyond the scope of
Section 4(2), and must exercise its choice to grant or reject
within 30 days. This position was affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
7/42
Authority v. Larsen & Toubro Limited reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1750 , establishing that keeping an application
pending beyond the prescribed period results in a "deemed
registration" under Section 5(2) of the Act. He further submits
that once this deemed registration accrues by operation of law, it
divests the Authority of its jurisdiction to subsequently reject the
application, rendering the Authority's actions wholly without
jurisdiction.
7. Addressing the Authority's contention that the
application was legally "incomplete" and therefore the 30-days
statutory period never commenced, the counsel for petitioner
further asserts that the Authority cannot simultaneously claim
the application was incapable of being considered while actively
keeping it under prolonged scrutiny, issuing successive queries,
and eventually passing a formal rejection. To support the strict,
literal interpretation of the statutory time limit, counsel for
petitioner relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and M/s Newtech
Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. ,
emphasizing that courts and authorities must read statutes in
their literal sense without rendering substantive provisions
otiose or redundant. Furthermore, relying on Bhavnagar
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
8/42
University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Sharif-ud-Din
v. Abdul Gani Lone , senior counsel contends that when a statute
prescribes a time limit coupled with a specific consequence for
non-compliance, that requirement assumes a mandatory
character. He also stresses that subordinate legislation, such as
Regulation 5 of the Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(General) Regulations, 2024, cannot override, dilute, or defeat
the substantive mandate of Section 5(2) of the parent enactment.
8. Learned counsel further challenges the Authority's
jurisdictional overreach, arguing that RERA is not empowered
to act as an appellate or revisional authority over the competent
municipal body. The building plan and map for the project had
already been duly sanctioned by the Patna Municipal
Corporation, which issued a permit letter on 20.02.2025. He
relied upon the final judgment of the Division Bench of the
Patna High Court in Narendra Mishra v. State of Bihar & Ors.
(CWJC No. 8152 of 2013) dated 23.06.2015, which
authoritatively held that the Municipal Corporation is the
competent authority vested with the power and duty to ensure
constructions conform to its bye-laws. The respondent
Authority's reliance on M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. v.
Municipal Building Tribunal is entirely misplaced, as that
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
9/42
decision relied on interim orders from the Narendra Mishra
case which subsequently merged into the final judgment.
Additionally, the Tirupati Homes judgment is currently stayed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Diary No. 24440/2017) and
concerns municipal regulations, not the jurisdiction of RERA.
The respondent's reliance on the Pre-RERA case New India Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd reported in (2008) 9 SCC 694 is
similarly untenable, as it operates in a completely different
statutory framework.
9. On the merits of the demanded documents, the
senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the insistence on
an express approval from the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies and an amendment to the 1982 Sale Deed falls entirely
outside the statutory requirements of Section 4 of the RERA Act
and Rule 3 of the Bihar RERA Rules, 2017. He further submits
that the petitioner had already demonstrated title and authority
by placing the Sale Deed on record and providing a valid “No
Objection Certificate” (NOC) dated 24.01.2023, issued by the
President of the Rajiv Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sahayog
Samiti. Significantly, learned senior counsel points out that the
Authority's actions are hit by the vice of hostile discrimination
under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Authority previously
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
10/42
granted registration to a similarly situated project, "LAXMI
HEIGHT" (Registration No. BRERAP00408-003/R-
1734/2024), based solely on an NOC issued by the co-operative
society itself. The Authority's attempt to dismiss this precedent
as a mere "error" without showing any intelligible differentia is
arbitrary and unreasonable, demonstrating that the petitioner is
being subjected to unequal treatment.
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
vehemently denies any allegations of mala fide conduct,
asserting that its prompt and detailed participation throughout
the registration process proves its bona fides , and that such
allegations are merely an afterthought devised by the Authority
to mask its own failure to discharge its statutory duties. Because
the Authority failed to pass an order within the strict 30-days
window, the statutory consequence under Section 5(2)
automatically came into operation, rendering the subsequent
Notice dated 18.12.2025, the order dated 08.01.2026, and the
consequential Form-D dated 16.02.2026, wholly illegal,
arbitrary, and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the
impugned notice and orders need to be quashed, and a
Mandamus is required to be issued directing the respondents to
give effect to the accrued statutory consequence by treating the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
11/42
project as deemed registered and to provide the requisite web-
portal login credentials, including the user ID and password.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the petitioner has approached the court with unclean hands by
concealing material facts and attempting to mislead the court, as
the initial application for the "Chhabilchandra Enclave" project
submitted on 09.06.2025, was wholly incomplete. He further
submits that upon scrutiny, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(RERA) raised five queries on 30.06.2025, with Query No. 5
specifically requiring the petitioner to submit the Bye-laws of
the Rajiv Nagar Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog, a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
and copies of any amendment to the sale deed allowing
conversion from a residential house to a multi-storied
apartment. It is submitted that an application is not considered
legally submitted until it is complete in all respects, as defined
under Rule 1(ii) and Regulation 5(2) and (3) of the Bihar Real
Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2024;
therefore, the statutory 30-days timeline for deemed registration
under Section 5(2) of the RERA Act never commenced due to
the application's persistent deficiencies.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
12/42
12. He further submits that the demand for these
specific co-operative society documents was strictly in
accordance with the law of the land, as settled by the Hon'ble
Patna High Court in Narendra Mishra vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 8152 of 2013) and subsequently affirmed in
M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Municipal Building
Tribunal (LPA No. 1485 of 2016) . It is submitted that these
judgments categorically mandate that land allotted by a housing
co-operative society for residential purposes cannot be
converted to commercial or multi-storied usage unless expressly
permitted by the Hire Purchase Agreement, the sale deed, the
society's bye-laws, and explicitly sanctioned by the Registrar,
Co-operative Societies. He further submits that in the absence of
the Registrar's express approval, any internal NOC issued by the
society is ultra vires , illegal, and holds no legal validity.
13. It is submitted that the petitioner deliberately
attempted to mislead the Authority by falsely claiming in a reply
dated 18.07.2025, that the judgment in Tirupati Homes had
been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits
that this was a blatant misrepresentation, as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Diary No. 24440/2017, only granted
an order of "status quo" on 01.09.2017, and did not stay the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
13/42
operation of the High Court's legal propositions. Consequently,
RERA issued a detailed explanatory letter on 10.10.2025,
clarifying that the Sale Deed of the year 1982 only authorized a
residential house, and that the Development Agreement of the
year 2019 proposing a multi-storied building could not bypass
judicial precedents without the requisite bye-laws and
Registrar's NOC.
14. He further submits that due to the petitioner's
persistent failure to cure the deficiencies, a rejection notice
under Section 5(1)(b) of the RERA Act was issued on
18.12.2025. It is submitted that during the subsequent
proceedings, the petitioner's advocate proactively appeared and
sought a 30-days extension, prompting the Special Presiding
Officer to grant time until 05.02.2026, vide an order dated
January 8, 2026, to submit the documents required under
Section 4 of the Act and Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules. He further
submits that despite this requested extension, the petitioner
failed to submit the documents, leaving the Authority with no
option but to formally reject the application and issue Form D
on 16.02.2026. The petitioner's contradictory behaviour of
voluntarily seeking time extensions while subsequently claiming
the 30-days statutory period had already lapsed demonstrates
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
14/42
clear mala fide intent and an attempt to take advantage of his
own wrongs.
15. It is submitted that the petitioner's argument
regarding hostile discrimination claiming that similar co-
operative society projects were previously granted registration is
legally fallacious, as it is a well-settled proposition of law that
an omission, oversight, or past mistake by a statutory authority
cannot operate as an estoppel or create a legal precedent
preventing the authority from lawfully exercising its powers. He
further submits that the prior approval of the building map by a
competent municipal authority does not preclude RERA from
exercising its broad powers under Section 4(2)(m) of the Act to
seek any necessary documents for registration. This regulatory
authority is supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision
in New India Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn.
of Greater Mumbai reported in (2008) 9 SCC 694 , which
established that the mere approval of a revised plan by a
municipal corporation is insufficient for converting plot usage
without the necessary co-operative NOCs.
16. He further submits that the petitioner's reliance on
Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Jitendra Jagdish Tulsani and
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs. Larsen &
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
15/42
Toubro Limited is wholly misconceived and distinguishable on
facts. It is submitted that in the Larsen & Toubro case , the
promoter had properly and completely answered all queries to
finalize the application, making the Authority liable for the
delay, whereas in the present case, the petitioner willfully
prolonged the process and failed to submit the mandated
documents. Relying on Bhavnagar University v. Palitana
Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Padmasundara Rao vs. State of T.N. ,
the counsel further submits that judicial decisions must be
applied with "circumstantial flexibility," as a single differing
fact, such as the petitioner's deliberate non-compliance here
makes a world of difference, rendering the claim for deemed
registration invalid and accordingly, the writ application is fit to
be dismissed.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES
17. For arriving to just conclusion in the matter, it
would be apt to record the stand taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in the instant writ petition for seeking the kind of
relief in relation to the project in question, which could have
been deemed registered in reference to the provisions of Section
5(2) of the RERA Act, 2016, if the same has not been rejected
within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
16/42
application by the RERA Authorities.
18. Admittedly, the petitioner is said to have
submitted an application for registration of the project namely,
‘CHHABILCHANDRA ENCLAVE’ on 09.06.2025 which
according to the Respondent No.2/RERA was an incomplete
application and therefore, the statutory prescription provided
under Section 5 of ‘ the Act, 2016 ’ was not available. While it is
the specific case of the petitioner that the application was filed
as per the checklist available on the website of Respondent No.2
and the grounds taken for rejection of petitioner’s application
for registration was never part of either the checklist or
requirement of requisite documents as embodied under the
Provision of RERA Act, 2016 and Rules and Regulations made
thereunder. The petitioner is said to have met the first set of
queries until 30.06.2025 i.e., approximately, within three weeks
after submission of the application and the subsequent queries
made from the petitioner could not have retrospectively erased
the date on which the application was submitted nor can it
indefinitely suspend the statutory obligation cast upon the
Authority under Section 5 of the Act, 2016.
19. It is the case of the petitioner that the stand taken
by Respondent No.2 to negate the effect of deemed registration
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
17/42
by submitting that the statutory period of 30 days prescribed
under Section 5 of the RERA Act, 2016 would not commence
until and unless every document subsequently called for by the
authority are furnished to the subjective satisfaction of the
RERA authorities and as such the submission made by the
Respondent No.2 is wholly misconceived and misplaced and is
contrary to the statutory scheme. It has also been submitted that
if such contention of the authorities of RERA is accepted, in
such event, the same would virtually confer an indefinite and
unbridled discretion upon the authority to keep an application
pending by raising successive queries from time to time and
thereby rendering the mandatory time frame stipulated under
Section 5(1) as well as the statutory deeming fiction as
expressly en-grafted under Section 5(2) of the Act, would
become redundant and make it nugatory. Even such
constructions being given by the Respondent No.2 cannot be
borrowed for the simple reason that the whole purpose and
object of the legislation would get frustrated if the authorities of
RERA is allowed to seek such information, which does not fall
within their jurisdiction rather the same are subject matter of
such authorities, who have been empowered under different
legislation, which primarily governs the issues related with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
18/42
subject matter connected with the powers and duties of the
designated authority under the said legislation.
20. It is well settled principle of literal rules of
statutory interpretation that where the language employed by the
legislature is plain and unambiguous, the Court is bound to give
effect to the legislative mandate as it stands and cannot read into
the statute words which are conspicuously absent. To buttress
his submission, legal maxim ‘ verbis legis non est recedendum ’
(there must be no departure from the words of the law) squarely
applies. It is equally settled law that a statutory provision
cannot be interpreted in the manner which renders other
substantive provision redundant and ineffective and such legal
principle can be borrowed from the observation made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of
Punjab & Ors as reported in AIR 2014 SC 1400 wherein it has
been reiterated that the Court cannot proceed with an
assumption that the legislature enacting the statute has
committed a mistake and where the language of the statute is
plain and unambiguous, the Court should not go behind the
language of the statute so as to add or subtract a word playing
the role of a political reformer or of a wise counsel to the
legislature. It is also required that the Court should proceed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
19/42
the footing that the legislature intended what it has said and
even if there is some defect in the phraseology etc., it is for
others than the Court to remedy that defect. The statute requires
to be interpreted without doing any violence to the language
used therein. The Court cannot re-write, recast or re-frame the
legislation for the reason that it has no power to legislate. It has
also been submitted by referring to the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and
Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors passed in Civil
Appeal No(s). 6745-6749 of 2021 that “ the principle of
interpretation of law is that the Court should read the section in
literal sense and cannot rewrite it to suit its convenience, nor
does any canon of constructions permits the Court to read the
section in such a manner as to render it to some extent otiose”.
21. The aforementioned principles have been referred
by the counsel for the petitioner which assumes greater
significance in the present case, where the Legislature has not
only prescribed a specific period of thirty days for disposal of an
application under section 5(1) but has also expressly stipulated
the legal consequence of non-compliance under section 5(2) and
it is trite that whenever a statute prescribes the manner in which
an act is to be performed and simultaneously provides the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
20/42
consequence of non-performance, such requirement is
mandatory and admits of no deviation.
22. To buttress the submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd & Ors as reported in AIR 2003 SC 511 , where the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that where a statute prescribes a time limit
coupled with a specific consequence for failure to act within
such time, the provision assumes a mandatory character. The
similar principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone as
reported in AIR 303, 1980; 1980 SCR (1) 1177 , wherein it has
been held that where the statute itself provides the consequence
of non-compliance, the prescribed requirement cannot be treated
as merely directory.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied
upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
which has the occasion to interpret the identical provisions of
Section-5 of the RERA Act in Larsen & Toubro Limited v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in 2024:AHC:160155-
DB , which has since been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority v.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
21/42
Larsen & Toubro Limited as reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1750 , wherein it has been categorically held that the Regulatory
Authority has only two options available within the statutory
period of thirty days, namely, (i) to grant registration, or (ii) to
reject the application. The authority cannot circumvent its
statutory obligation by keeping an application pending on the
pretext of alleged deficiencies or incompleteness. If the
Authority was of the opinion that the Petitioner's application
suffered from incurable defects or failed to satisfy the statutory
requirements, it was incumbent upon it to reject the application
within the prescribed period and having failed to exercise either
of the two options available under Section 5 within the
stipulated period, the statutory consequences contemplated
under Section 5(2) automatically ensued, and since the statutory
provisions are clear and unambiguous, Respondent No. 2 cannot
now be permitted to defeat such consequence by subsequently,
alleging that the application was incomplete or by relying upon
successive queries raised beyond the statutory period.
24. Insofar the requirement placed by the RERA
Authorities seeking society bylaws, an NOC from the Registrar,
Co-operative Societies and an amendment/supplementary
instrument under Section 4 of the RERA Act read with Rule 3 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
22/42
the Bihar RERA Rules, 2017 is completely beyond the domain
of RERA Authorities as the petitioner had already disclosed the
sale-deed concerning the project land was on record and had
produced the No Objection Certificate dated 24.01.2023 issued
by the President of Rajive Nagar Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog
Samiti and the said fact was specifically brought to the notice of
Respondent No.2 through the petitioner’s reply dated
03.07.2025, which forms part of the record and such facts,
according to the petitioner, have not been denied by the
Respondent No.2.
25. Insofar, the reliance placed by the Respondent
No.2 upon the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Narendra Mishra v. State of Bihar & Ors passed in CWJC No.
8152 of 2013 and M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt Ltd v. Municipal
Building Tribunal & Ors rendered in LPA No. 1485 of 2016 in
CWJC No. 4051 of 2015 is wholly misconceived and
misplaced. To buttress his submission, it has been submitted that
the said judgments were rendered in the context of the powers
of the Municipal Authorities under the applicable municipal
laws while considering the legality of grant of sanction, building
regulations and allied statutory compliances. The ratio laid
down therein cannot be extended so as to confer upon the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
23/42
Real Estate Regulatory Authority a jurisdiction which is
otherwise not vested in it under the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
26. By referring to the aforementioned decisions of
this Court, it has been submitted that while exercising powers
under Section 4 and 5 of the Act, the Regulatory Authority
should not have reopened or reviewed or should have sat in
appeal over the decision of municipal authorities or would have
proceeded to independently adjudicate upon the legality of a
building plan or sanction already granted by the competent
Municipal Authority in exercise of its statutory powers. Since
the jurisdiction of Regulatory Authority under Section 4 & 5 of
the RERA Act is confined to examining whether the application
for registration satisfies the statutory requirements prescribed
under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The RERA
Authority, who is not vested with the power of acting as an
Appellate, Supervisory or Revisional Authority over the orders,
permission or sanction granted by the competent Municipal or
Planning Authority under the respective Municipal statute, the
requirement made only for the purpose of delaying the project
from its registration within the statutory time limit by seeking
all such information, which were not even germane to the issues
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
24/42
related with registration of the project and as such, the entire
exercise was carried out to defeat and frustrate the legislative
object which is wholly uncalled for and is unsustainable in law
and deserved to be interfered with and accordingly, interference
is sought with the impugned notice dated 18.12.2025 as being
liable to be quashed which having been issued after the statutory
period had already expired and the subsequent order dated
08.01.2026 which is consequential to the same process cannot
be allowed to sustain in law as the authority had already lost
jurisdiction to reject the application after expiry of statutory
period. Consequently, Form-D dated 16.02.2026 being
consequential to the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 is fit to
be quashed.
27. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 by referring to the statement made in counter
affidavit submits that after filing of application of registration on
09.06.2025, upon scrutiny of the application and the documents
annexed thereto, the application was found incomplete and
deficient in material particulars. Consequently, within a period
of one month i.e., on 30.06.2025, a set of five queries were
issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to furnish the
requisite documents and comply with necessary requirements
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
25/42
prescribed under the Act and regulations framed under the
RERA Act, 2016.
28. The petitioner is said to have submitted the
compliance in respect of four out of five queries raised by the
authorities, however, the petitioner failed to furnish the
requisites with respect to query no.5 stated above instead
submitted an application vide reply dated 03.07.2025 which was
wholly unsatisfactory and is contrary to the settled position of
law laid down by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of
M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt Ltd (supra) [ LPA No. 1485 of 2016
arising out of CWJC No. 4051 of 2015] wherein the Hon’ble
High Court has laid down the requirements for construction of
multi storied apartment or commercial building in housing co-
operative societies. By referring to the judgment rendered in
M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt Ltd (supra), it has been submitted that
the documents which were sought from the petitioner were
asked in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the
case of M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt Ltd (supra) and therefore, the
contention of the petitioner that the said judgment has been
stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court may not negate the necessity
as rendered by the Hon’ble Court rather it has been contended
that since the judgment has been stayed, the need of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
26/42
requisite document as sought by the Authority cannot be said to
be wholly uncalled for as the Hon’ble Apex Court has only
granted the status quo and not stayed the judgment of M/s
Tirupati Homes Pvt Ltd (supra), and therefore, the
interpretation which has been given by the petitioner is
incorrect, insofar, the petitioner is said to have chosen not to
comply with the legal requirement as sought by the Authority.
29. The Respondent No.2 has further tried to justify
the requirement of seeking sale-deed bylaws of the above-
mentioned societies and as also the No Objection Certificate
issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies which being an
essential requirement in line with the judicial precedent as
referred hereinabove coupled with the development agreement
proposing construction of a multi-storied building and to
buttress the submission and justification, the reference of
provisions of Section 4, Section 6 and Section 9 of the Act, 2016
has been made. It has also been contended by the Respondent
No.2 that the petitioner by concealing material facts as raised
objection that the 30 days time line has not been adhered rather
according to them had never begun on account of the
application being incomplete and, therefore, the relief sought by
the petitioner cannot be allowed in their favour as there was no
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
27/42
compliance of Section 4 of the RERA Act, 2016 and in absence
of non completion of formalities as required under the statutory
provision, the petitioner could not have got the registration of
the project done.
30. The submission of the petitioner that RERA
Authorities under the aforementioned legislation did not have
the power to seek all such document is out and out
misinterpretation of statutory law and the law of land and
therefore, it has been submitted that Section 4(2) (M) of RERA
Act, 2016 is required to be given a wider interpretation as the
same provides broad ambit to the authority to seek any
information and the documents as may be prescribed from time
to time which are necessary for the registration of the project
and insofar, the parity having been sought by the petitioner with
regard to the similar projects having been approved by the
RERA Authorities without seeking all such documents which
have been sought from this petitioner, it has been submitted that
merely because certain wrongs have been committed, the
negative equality cannot be extended in favour of any other
person whose project is found to be incomplete in reference to
the provisions of RERA Act and its Rules, 2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
28/42
CONCLUSION
31. Before adjudicating the issues at hand, it is
appropriate to appreciate the whole object of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the RERA Act") in
its true perspective. Its long title is required to be elaborately
discussed to give the legislative intent, its true meaning and
accordingly, it is being observed that through this legislation the
Real Estate Authority is established for regulation and
promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot,
apartment or building or sale of real estate project in an efficient
and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers
in the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating
mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to establish the
Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions, directions
or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the
adjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
32 . Since the Appellate Forum of RERA is not
functional, therefore, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ
petition challenging the order passed by the RERA Authority
and accordingly, this Court has the occasion to hear the issues
raised by the petitioner and adjudicate the same. It is apt to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
29/42
mention that the legislators have come up with this legislation to
protect the consumers while it equally promotes the real estate
sector and also seeks to bring the projects to the market
efficiently and without avoidable delay. But the manner in
which, the issues have been dealt with by the RERA Authorities
in the instant matter, surely invites the attention of this Court to
intervene in this case as to why the prescription of time limit
given under the legislation, has been given a go-by by the
authorities, who are entrusted to act in consonance with the
powers and duties provided under the legislation which provides
the project to be registered in a time bound frame as per the
legislative schemes.
33. Driven by this object, the powers of the Authority
are limited. It is a regulator created by the statute and can
exercise only the powers conferred by the Act and the Rules and
Regulations made under it. It is not a planning, licensing or
municipal sanctioning authority, nor an appellate or revisional
forum over decisions of other statutory bodies. Where the
language of the Act is plain, the Court must give effect to it as it
stands, without adding or subtracting words and without reading
one provision so as to render another otiose: Hardeep Singh v.
State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 1400; M/s Newtech
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
30/42
Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021 . Where the statute fixes a
time limit and states the consequence of default, the provision is
mandatory: Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 511; Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone,
AIR 1980 SC 303; Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1750 .
34. The documents a promoter must furnish with an
application for registration are those listed in Section 4 of the
Act, which reads:
"4. Application for registration of real estate
projects.—
(1) Every promoter shall make an application to
the Authority for registration of the real estate
project in such form, manner, within such time
and accompanied by such fee as may be
prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall enclose the following
documents along with the application referred to
in sub-section (1), namely:—
(a) a brief details of his enterprise including
its name, registered address, type of enterprise
(proprietorship, societies, partnership,
companies, competent authority), and the
particulars of registration, and the names and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
31/42
photographs of the promoter;
(b) a brief detail of the projects launched by
him, in the past five years, whether already
completed or being developed, as the case
may be, including the current status of the
said projects, any delay in its completion,
details of cases pending, details of type of
land and payments pending;
(c) an authenticated copy of the approvals and
commencement certificate from the competent
authority obtained in accordance with the
laws as may be applicable for the real estate
project mentioned in the application, and
where the project is proposed to be developed
in phases, an authenticated copy of the
approvals and commencement certificate from
the competent authority for each of such
phases;
(d) the sanctioned plan, layout plan and
specifications of the proposed project or the
phase thereof, and the whole project as
sanctioned by the competent authority;
(e) the plan of development works to be
executed in the proposed project and the
proposed facilities to be provided thereof
including fire fighting facilities, drinking
water facilities, emergency evacuation
services, use of renewable energy;
(f) the location details of the project, with
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
32/42
clear demarcation of land dedicated for the
project along with its boundaries including
the latitude and longitude of the end points of
the project;
(g) proforma of the allotment letter, agreement
for sale, and the conveyance deed proposed to
be signed with the allottees;
(h) the number, type and the carpet area of
apartments for sale in the project along with
the area of the exclusive balcony or verandah
areas and the exclusive open terrace areas
appurtenant with the apartment, if any;
(i) the number and area of garage for sale in
the project;
(j) the names and addresses of his real estate
agents, if any, for the proposed project;
(k) the names and addresses of the
contractors, architect, structural engineer, if
any and other persons concerned with the
development of the proposed project;
(l) a declaration, supported by an affidavit,
which shall be signed by the promoter or any
person authorised by the promoter, stating:—
(A) that he has a legal title to the land on
which the development is proposed along
with legally valid documents with
authentication of such title, if such land is
owned by another person;
(B) that the land is free from all
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
33/42
encumbrances, or as the case may be
details of the encumbrances on such land
including any rights, title, interest or name
of any party in or over such land along with
details;
(C) the time period within which he
undertakes to complete the project or phase
thereof, as the case may be;
(D) that seventy per cent. of the amounts
realised for the real estate project from the
allottees, from time to time, shall be
deposited in a separate account to be
maintained in a scheduled bank to cover the
cost of construction and the land cost and
shall be used only for that purpose:
Provided that the promoter shall withdraw
the amounts from the separate account, to
cover the cost of the project, in proportion
to the percentage of completion of the
project:
Provided further that the amounts from the
separate account shall be withdrawn by the
promoter after it is certified by an engineer,
an architect and a chartered accountant in
practice that the withdrawal is in
proportion to the percentage of completion
of the project:
Provided also that the promoter shall get
his accounts audited within six months after
the end of every financial year by a
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
34/42
chartered accountant in practice, and shall
produce a statement of accounts duly
certified and signed by such chartered
accountant and it shall be verified during
the audit that the amounts collected for a
particular project have been utilised for
that project and the withdrawal has been in
compliance with the proportion to the
percentage of completion of the project.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this
clause, the term "scheduled bank" means a
bank included in the Second Scheduled to
the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of
1934);
(E) that he shall take all the pending
approvals on time, from the competent
authorities;
(F) that he has furnished such other
documents as may be prescribed by the
rules or regulations made under this Act;
and
(m) such other information and documents as
may be prescribed.
(3) The Authority shall operationalise a web
based online system for submitting applications
for registration of projects within a period of one
year from the date of its establishment."
35. The three documents on which Respondent No. 2
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
35/42
insisted while rejecting the application, namely (i) the bye-laws
of Rajiv Nagar Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahayog showing power to
authorize multi-storeyed construction, (ii) approval of the
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for conversion of use from a
residential house to a multi-storeyed apartment, and (iii) any
amendment or supplementary deed to the 1982 sale deed, are
not found anywhere in Section 4(2). Section 4(2)(l)(F) and (m)
permit only such further documents "as may be prescribed",
which means prescribed by the Rules or Regulations. Even the
conjoint reading of Section 4(2) of the Act read with Rule 3 of
Bihar RERA Rules, 2017 does not envisage the requirement any
such documents as has been insisted upon by Respondent no. 2.
Further, Respondent No. 2 has not shown any such Rule or
Regulation, and a wide reading of clause (m), as urged, would
make the word "prescribed" meaningless. The Act requires a
declaration on title under Section 4(2)(l)(A) and (B), and
nothing more; the Authority does not adjudicate title or the
validity of a building plan sanctioned by the Patna Municipal
Corporation. The decisions in Narendra Mishra (CWJC No.
8152 of 2013) and Tirupati Homes (LPA No. 1485 of 2016)
concern the powers of municipal authorities and by taking aid of
the objections, the RERA authority cannot enlarge the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
36/42
legislative jurisdiction of the Authority as envisaged under
Sections 4 and 5. As against this, the petitioner's application
(Annexure P-1) with its annexures covered each head of Section
4(2): the firm and partners, past projects, location and
boundaries with latitude and longitude, apartment and parking
details, development works, contractor, architect and engineer,
the project bank account, the sanctioned building and layout
plans, and the land documents, along with the society's No
Objection Certificate dated 24.01.2023 produced with the reply
of 03.07.2025. Respondent No. 2 has not pointed to any
document as required as per Section 4(2) that was missing. The
application was therefore complete in terms of Section 4, and
the ground of incompleteness, which rests on three documents
beyond the said provision, is not sustainable.
36. Section 5 of the Act, as reproduced above,
provides:
"5. Grant of Registration
(1) On receipt of the application under sub-
section (1) of section 4, the Authority shall
within a period of thirty days,—
(a) grant registration subject to the
provisions of this Act and the rules and
regulations made thereunder, and provide a
registration number, including a Login Id
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
37/42
and password to the applicant for accessing
the website of the Authority and to create
his web page and to fill therein the details
of the proposed project; or
(b) reject the application for reasons to be
recorded in writing, if such application
does not conform to the provisions of this
Act or the rules or regulations made
thereunder:
Provided that no application shall be
rejected unless the applicant has been given
an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2) If the Authority fails to grant the
registration or reject the application, as the
case may be, as provided under sub-section
(1), the project shall be deemed to have been
registered, and the Authority shall within a
period of seven days of the expiry of the said
period of thirty days specified under sub-
section (1), provide a registration number and
a Login Id and password to the promoter for
accessing the website of the Authority and to
create his web page and to fill therein the
details of the proposed project."
37. The Authority was therefore bound, within thirty
days of receipt of the application, either to register the project or
to reject the application after hearing the promoter. As held in
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
38/42
Larsen & Toubro (supra) , it has only these two courses, and it
cannot keep the application pending on a plea of deficiency. The
thirty days run "on receipt of the application"; the Section
contains nothing which stops or restarts them each time a query
is raised. To accept the Authority's stand that the period never
began would let it defeat the deeming provision in Section 5(2)
by raising query after query, and would render that provision
otiose.
38. Even if this Court were to accept the plea of the
learned counsel for the Respondent-RERA and permit the
Authority to demand documents which are not prescribed under
Section 4 of the Act, 2016 read with Rule 3 of the Bihar Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, it would
amount to enlarging the powers of the Authority beyond the
legislative scope. It is well settled principle that where the
Legislature has conferred a definite power on an authority to act
in a specified manner and within defined statutory limits, the
authority must act strictly within those limits. A Court cannot
confer on a statutory authority a power which the Legislature
has not given, nor can it permit the authority to travel beyond
the statute by reading into its requirements that are not found in
its text. Where the Legislature has itself vested a power in an
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
39/42
authority and has prescribed the manner and limits within which
it is to be exercised, the Court cannot step in to legislate on the
same subject or to enlarge that power. The Hon’ble Apex Court,
in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 323 , held in paragraph 14 which is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“14………... It is not the duty of
the court either to enlarge the scope of the
legislation or the intention of the legislature
when the language of the provision is plain
and unambiguous. The court cannot rewrite,
recast or reframe the legislation for the very
good reason that it has no power to
legislate. The power to legislate has not
been conferred on the courts. The court
cannot add words to a statute or read words
into it which are not there. Assuming there is
a defect or an omission in the words used by
the legislature the court could not go to its
aid to correct or make up the deficiency.
Courts shall decide what the law is and not
what it should be. The court of course adopts
a construction which will carry out the
obvious intention of the legislature but could
not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial
activism to set at naught legislative
judgment is subversive of the constitutional
harmony and comity of instrumentalities.”
39 . The same principle has also been reiterated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar
Upadhyay v. Union of India , 2026 INSC 432 , wherein at
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
40/42
paragraph-36, it has been held as follows:
“ 36. It is thus well settled that
while exercising its writ jurisdiction, this
Court may interpret and develop the law and
may also indicate the necessity for
legislative reform where the circumstances
so warrant. However, the Court cannot issue
a writ of mandamus directing the Legislature
or the Government to enact a particular law
or to introduce a Bill before the Legislature
within a stipulated time frame. While the
Court may draw attention to the need for
legislative action, it cannot compel the
Legislature to undertake the law-making
function.”
40. Further, the application was filed on 19.06.2025,
and the thirty days expired on 19.07.2025. The first set of
queries was raised on 30.06.2025, and the petitioner replied on
03.07.2025. A second query was raised on 10.10.2025 and was
answered on 30.10.2025. Neither grant nor rejection of
registration of project followed afterwards. The notice under
Section 5(1)(b) was issued only on 18.12.2025, about five and a
half months after the petitioner’s first reply and over six months
after the application. The hearing took place on 08.01.2026, and
Form-D rejecting the application was issued on 16.02.2026,
about eight months after the submission of online application
for registration of project. Respondent No. 2 has neither
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
41/42
explained this delay in its counter-affidavit/written statement
nor at the time of hearing, whereas the petitioner answered the
first queries within three days. The Authority’s delay must be
seen alongside the object of the Act, which is to allow projects
to proceed efficiently and without unnecessary delay. The
Authority was expected to decide the matter promptly, and if
dissatisfied, it should have rejected the application within thirty
days. It’s conduct runs against the legislative object and the
purport of Section 5(2) of the Act, 2016, under which the project
stood deemed registered on expiry of the thirty days 19.07.2025,
so that the notice of 18.12.2025, the order of 08.01.2026 and the
Form-D of 16.02.2026 were issued after the Authority had lost
the power to reject.
41. The fact that, on 08.01.2026, the petitioner’s
counsel sought time to file the documents does not alter the
legislative mandate, because the deeming consequence arises by
operation of law and cannot be waived or undone by a promoter
responding to a notice issued after the period had ended. The
Court is constrained to observe that the RERA authorities acted
very callously, when the matter demanded strict and prompt
handling within the time fixed by the Legislature. To set things
right, to fulfill the object of the Act and to give effect to the
legislative intent in its proper perspective, the deeming effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.5406 of 2026 dt. 05-11-2026
42/42
under Section 5(2) must be given full force. Moreover, the
Authority had no valid reason for rejection, since the documents
demanded do not fall within Section 4 of the Act or Rule 3 of the
Bihar RERA Rules, 2017 and on pick and choose basis the project
was rejected while similar project in the name of ‘LAXMI
HEIGHT’ has been approved. The petitioner has therefore made
out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus to give effect to the
deeming clause and to hold the project “CHHABILCHANDRA
ENCLAVE” deemed registered, with direction to provide the
registration number, login ID and password.
42. In view of the observation made above, the present
writ application is allowed. The notice dated 18.12.2025, the order
dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) and Form-D dated 16.02.2026
(Annexure P-5) are hereby quashed. The project "Chhabilchandra
Enclave" is held to be deemed registered under Section 5(2) of the
RERA Act, and further, Respondent No. 2 shall provide the petitioner
with the registration number and Login Id and password forthwith
from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date 06.11.2026