Tulsiani Constructions And Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Bhupendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5621 of 2026
Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory
Sri Bhupendra Kumar
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and
5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prerna Jalan, Shobhit Mohan
Shukla
Along with
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5769 of 2026
M/s Sunshine Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory Sri
Bhupendra Kumar
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and
6 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prerna Jalan, Shobhit Mohan
Shukla
Along with
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5771 of 2026
Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory
Sri Bhupendra Kumar
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and
5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav Mishra,

2
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
Mudit Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prerna Jalan, Shobhit Mohan
Shukla
Along with
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5843 of 2026
Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory
Sri Bhupendra Kumar
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and
5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prerna Jalan, Shobhit Mohan
Shukla
Along with
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6014 of 2026
Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory
Sri Bhupendra Kumar
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and
5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prerna Jalan, Shobhit Mohan
Shukla
AFR
Court No. - 8
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. This is a batch of five petitions which raise a common question of
law and fact, hence, they were all connected, and were listed in the
additional cause list. While another petition involving the same issue,
filed by the same petitioner, is listed in the list of fresh cases at serial

3
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
number 21. Hence, that too has been connected and is being decided by
this common judgment.
2. The issue involved in the aforesaid petitions relates to the
jurisdiction and validity of the order passed by the Revenue Recovery
Officer, Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as
‘RERA’) in respect of an application moved by the petitioner seeking
correction in the recovery certificate issued by RERA, which was
primarily relatable to the calculation/recalculation of the amount
impacting the interest component entered in the recovery certificate.
3. As a jurisdictional issue is involved in all the 5 petitions, hence,
the facts of all the petitions are not being noted separately, and for the
sake of convenience, the facts are being noted from petition bearing No.
A- 227 No. 5771 of 2026.
4. In case if the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners
relating to the lack of jurisdiction of the Revenue Recovery Officer is
upheld, then irrespective of the facts of each case, the orders impugned
in all the petitions would have to be set aside.
5. Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 2, 3, and 6, submits that since the issue involved is
primarily legal in nature and all the notifications which otherwise would
have been placed on record by the RERA, have been placed by the
petitioners along with the supplementary affidavit, hence, he submits
that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit.
6. Ms. Prerna Jalan, learned counsel, has put in appearance and filed
her preliminary objections on behalf of the private respondents (home

4
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
buyers) in Petition bearing (A-227) No. 6014 of 2026 and she further
submits that she appears in all the petitions on behalf of the private
respondents (home buyers), including in the petition listed in the fresh
list today, and she has also filed her vakalatnama in the fresh petition as
well, which is taken on record. She further submits that her preliminary
objections filed in the instant petition may also be treated as her
objections in the other connected petitions, including in the fresh petition
listed today.
7. In this background, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the aforesaid batch of petitions is being decided finally at the
admission stage itself.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant batch
of petitions, it would be appropriate to notice the background facts first.
9. The petitioner company is duly engaged in the development of
real estate and its project in question is duly registered with RERA. It
had developed a multi-storied residential apartments in the name and
style of Golf View Apartments in Sushant Golf City, Lucknow. The
private respondents, being the home buyers, entered into a builder-buyer
agreement with the petitioner.
10. In each of the petitions, the private respondents, being the home
buyers, entered into their respective builder-buyer agreements, of
different dates, relating to different units and for different sale price.
However, considering the issue involved in these pettions, which has
been noted in the above mentioned paragraphs, hence, the details of the

5
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
agreement, sale consideration, and unit numbers may not be very
relevant here, hence, it is not being mentioned.
11. Be that as it may, the home buyers had certain grievances with the
petitioner company and they raised it by invoking the jurisdiction of
RERA by making their complaints. RERA, by means of its judgment and
order dated 23.05.2022, directed the petitioner company to provide the
possession of the unit, the subject matter of the home-buyer agreement,
after completing the formalities within a period of 45 days, and for the
delayed period, the petitioner was also required to pay interest from the
date mentioned in the agreement for providing the possession till the
date of actual handing over possession, along with interest which would
be 1% higher to the MCLR as determined by the State Bank.
13. In furtherance of the said order dated 23.05.2022, a recovery
certificate was issued dated 08.07.2025. Since the payment was not
made in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2022, hence, the home-
buyers moved an application to the RERA seeking compliance of its
order.
14. It is at this stage that the petitioner company moved an application
for rectification of the recovery certificate. As per the petitioner
company, the period for which interest was mentioned and calculated
and indicated in the recovery certificate was incorrect, hence it required
the RERA to recall/recalculate/rectify the recovery certificate. Since the
application moved by the petitioner was engaging the attention of the
RERA authorities, hence the petitioner preferred a petition under Article
227 No. 7160 of 2025, which was disposed of by means of order dated

6
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
12.12.2025 directing the RERA/Secretary to dispose of the pending
application of the petitioner expeditiously after giving a reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any
unnecessary adjournments, preferably within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the order.
15. In furtherance thereof, the Revenue Recovery Officer rejected the
application for rectification by means of the impugned order dated
12.08.2026, which is under challenge in this batch of petitions.
16. Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Sri Vidhu Bhushan Kalia and Sri Saurabh Misra, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submitted that in terms and scheme of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act of 2016’), the word "Authority" has been defined in Section 2(i) to
mean the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under sub-section
(1) of Section 20. As per the Act, the Authority is to consist of a
Chairperson and minimum two whole-time members who are to be
appointed by the Appropriate Government.
17. It is further submitted that the Authority, as defined above, also
has officers and other employees, who are appointed by the Appropriate
Government in consultation with the Authority, and such officers and
employees would discharge their functions under the general
superintendence of the Chairperson.
18. The functions of the Authority have been provided for in Sections
32, 34 to 40 of the Act of 2016. However, it was urged that Section 39
confers power on the Authority to rectify its orders. It was further

7
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
submitted that in terms of Section 39 of the Act of 2016, the Authority is
empowered at any time within a period of two years from the date of the
order made under the Act to rectify any mistake apparent from the
record, amend any order passed by it, and it shall make such amendment
if the mistake is brought to the notice by the parties.
19. The aforesaid Section 39 is qualified by two provisos, one states
that no such amendment would be made in respect of any order against
which an appeal has been preferred under the Act, and the other proviso
qualifies the power of the Authority that it shall not, while rectifying any
mistake apparent from the record, amend any substantive part of the
order which is passed under the provisions of the Act of 2016.
20. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Section 81 of
the Act of 2016 empowers the Authority to make any general or special
order in writing, delegating such of its powers and functions under the
Act (except the power to make regulations under Section 85) as it may
deem necessary, to such member, officer of the Authority, or any other
person. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the Uttar Pradesh
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Rules of 2016’), pointing out that in Rule 21 of the
Rules of 2016, the Government is empowered to appoint two suitable
persons as Secretary (who shall not be less than the rank of a Special
Secretary to the Government) and the Chief Accounts Officer/Finance
Controller of the Authority. The Secretary so appointed can exercise
such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by the
Regulations or delegated to them by the Authority.

8
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
21. Similarly, in Rule 22 of the Rules of 2016, certain additional
powers have also been conferred on the Authority, while Rule 23 and 24
of the Rules of 2016 refer to the manner of recovery of interest, penalty,
and compensation, as well as the manner of implementation of the order,
direction, or decision of the Adjudicating Officer, the Authority, or the
Appellate Tribunal.
22. Shri Mathur has also drawn the attention of the Court to the Uttar
Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019
(hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of ‘2019’), and more
particularly to Regulation 13 and Regulation 14(c)(v) and (vi) of the
Regulations of 2019, to submit that the officers of the Authority shall
carry out such functions under the Act or the Rules as may be delegated
to him by the Chairperson by general or special order. The officer of the
Authority shall assist the Authority in proceedings relating to the powers
exercisable by the Authority as directed by the Chairperson.
23. Shri Mathur further pointed out that the Authority from time to
time had issued certain office orders delegating certain functions to its
officers, and one of the said office orders of delegation dated 8th August
2024, has been referred to, which is part of the supplementary affidavit
filed by the petitioner dated 26.10.2024. It was pointed out that under
Clause 6 of the office order of delegation dated 8th August, 2024, Clause
6.5 clearly provided that the act of issuance of recovery certificate or
implementation of the direction of the Authority would be done by the
Secretary. Any matter relating to any rectification or amendment in the
recovery order would not be accepted by the Authority; rather, any

9
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
application for rectification in the recovery order would be referred to
the Secretary, and the Secretary, RERA, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned, would decide the application for
rectification on merits.
24. Sri Mathur further pointed out that the Authority issued another
office order on 22.09.2025, a copy of which has been brought on record
along with the supplementary affidavit dated 26.10.2024. Referring to
the said office order, it was pointed out that the Authority, in its 183rd
meeting held on 17.09.2025, resolved that any application for
rectification/amendment in the recovery certificate would be referred to
the Secretary, RERA, who, in turn, would refer the same to the Revenue
Recovery Officer. The concerned Revenue Recovery Officer, after
hearing the parties on merits, would examine the matter and would then
submit its proposal to the Secretary, RERA, for his final decision.
25. It was thus submitted that under the scheme of the Act of 2016, the
Authority has the power to delegate any of its functions except the
functions under Section 85 of the Act of 2013. The RERA Authority did
delegate its function to the Secretary in respect of receiving and
entertaining applications for rectification/amendment of the recovery
certificate, who was required to decide the same after hearing the parties
on merits in terms of Clause 6.5 of the office order/order of delegation
dated 08.08.2024. This was further amended by the office order dated
22.09.2025, whereby the Secretary, RERA, was required to refer the
application for rectification/amendment of the recovery certificate to the
concerned Revenue Recovery Officer, who was required to examine the

10
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
matter and submit its report/proposal to the Secretary, RERA, who
would then be the authority to take a decision thereon.
26. However, this power of delegation did not confer any right on the
Revenue Recovery Officer to take a decision and decide the matter. It
was urged that in all the petitions, it is the Revenue Recovery Officer of
RERA who has decided the application for rectification, which is a clear
case of an authority exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction, which
renders the orders impugned void ab initio . In such circumstances, the
order passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer is patently dehors the
scheme of the Act, Rules, Regulations, and also beyond the power of
delegation as per the office order dated 22.09.2025. Thus, being a clear
case of exercise of jurisdiction beyond the provisions, it vitiates the
order impugned; accordingly, it is liable to be set aside, and the petitions
deserve to be allowed.
27. Ms. Prerna Jalan, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents (home-buyers), has raised preliminary objections regarding
the maintainability of the petitions, on two counts:
(i) That the order impugned can be assailed in an appeal
before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as ‘REAT’). It was also urged that in one of the
matters, the petitioner company has already invoked the
appellate jurisdiction of the REAT, and in such
circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioner
company to ventilate the grievance before the REAT in these
matters too;

11
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
(ii) That the orders impugned are not void ab initio as
suggested by the learned Senior Counsel, but the Revenue
Recovery Officer has merely given its opinion that the said
recovery certificate does not require any rectification or
amendment. It would be a different situation where the
Revenue Recovery Officer, RERA, would have entered into
the merits and would have allowed the application; then, of
course, it may be that the Revenue Recovery Officer can be
said to have exceeded the jurisdiction. But in the instant
case, the Revenue Recovery Officer found that the
submission of the petitioner company was not tenable;
hence, it maintained the correctness of the recovery
certificate, coupled with the fact that the same was done
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is any excess of
jurisdiction or violations of principles of natural justice. The
petitioners are raising technical objections only with a view
to prolong and defer the implementation of the order passed
by RERA. Thus, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
28. Shri Mathur, at this stage, submitted that since the order itself is
without jurisdiction and in excess of jurisdiction conferred on the
Revenue Recovery Officer, hence, the petitioner may not be relegated to
the alternate forum. It is well settled that if an order impugned is without
jurisdiction, and to examine the said nullity no disputed fact or evidence
is to be sifted, in such circumstances, the petition would definitely be

12
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
maintainable, as well as in such circumstances, the Court should
intervene and the petitions deserve to be allowed.
29. Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
Real Estate Regulatory Authority, attempted to justify and support the
order impugned on the premise that the Revenue Recovery Officer has
been delegated the power lawfully in terms of the provisions of the Act
of 2016, and it has examined the matter and found that there was no
rectification or amendment required in the recovery certificate; hence, it
turned down the request of the petitioner.
30. He further elaborated that the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner could have been correct provided that the
Revenue Recovery Officer would have entered into the merits and would
have found that the recovery certificate required some
amendment/rectification, and after coming to the said conclusion, if it
would have allowed the application, perhaps then it could be said that
the Revenue Recovery Officer exceeded its jurisdiction. However, in the
instant case, the Revenue Recovery Officer has merely reiterated the
view of the Authority through the Secretary issuing the certificate;
hence, in such circumstances, there is no requirement to interfere, and
the orders passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer are valid. The
petitioners, in order to avoid its liability, are raising technical objections
which cannot be countenanced in law. Hence, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
31. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the material on record.

13
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
32. Certain undisputed facts that emerge from the record are:
(a) In pursuance of a complaint made by the home-buyers, the
RERA had passed an order dated 23.05.2022;
(b) It is also undisputed that in furtherance of the said order, a
recovery certificate was issued, against which the petitioner
moved an application seeking rectification/amendment in the
recovery certificate;
(c) It is also undisputed that under the Act of 2016, the
Authority has been defined and comprises of a Chairperson
and a minimum of two whole-time members;
(d) It is also undisputed that the Authority, along with the
Appropriate Government, is empowered to appoint officers
and other employees;
(e) It is also undisputed that in terms of Rule 21 of the Rules
of 2016, the Government is empowered to appoint a Secretary,
who shall not be less than the rank of a Special Secretary to
the Government, and the Chief Accounts Officer/Finance
Controller of the Authority;
(f) It is also not disputed that in terms of Section 81 of the Act
of 2016, the Authority has the power to delegate any of its
functions, except the power to make regulations, to any
member or officer of the Authority or any other such person,
by a general or special order in writing;
(g) It is also not disputed that the RERA had delegated its
power regarding rectification of the recovery certificate

14
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
(powers of Section 39 of the Act of 2016) to the Secretary by
means of a special order dated 08.08.2024 (Clause 6.5 at
running page 18 of supplementary affidavit dated 26.10.2026);
(h) It is also not disputed that the RERA, vide its order dated
22.09.2025, further delegated a limited power to the Revenue
Recovery Officer, RERA, to deal with the
rectification/amendment of the recovery certificate.
33. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, considering the
contention of the rival parties, the issue that requires consideration is the
correct construction of the office order dated 22.09.2025 by which the
Revenue Recovery Officer has been delegated the power to deal with the
rectification/amendment of the recovery certificate.
34. In this regard, it will be first relevant to consider the power of
delegation made in terms of the office order dated 08.08.2024 relating to
the rectification. For the aforesaid purpose, it will be appropriate to
reproduce Clause 6, which reads as under:
“6.1 / 02
मूलआदेश निदेशके वर्षकेअन्दरउभयपक्षोंकोसुनकरहीकोई
/
आदेश निदेशपारितकियाजायेगा।
6.2 (Apparent from
यहप्रावधानअभिलेखोंमेंस्पष्टरूपसेदृश्यमान
Record)
त्रुटिकेसुधारतकसीमितहै।अतःइसबातकाध्यानरखाजाये
/ ,
कि मूलआदेश निदेशकासारवानअशयथावतरहेगा उसमेंकोईपरिवर्तनन

कियाजाये।
6.3 . . - /
उ प्र भू सम्पदाविनियामकप्राधिकरणद्वारापारितकिसीआदेश निदेश
, -39
केविरुद्धयदि अपीललम्बि तहै तोधारा केअधीनकोईसंशोधननहीं

कियाजायेगा।
6.4 /
इसधारामेंसुनवाईकेदौरानकिसीप्रकारकास्थगनआदेश निदेशन
,
पारितकियाजाये बल्कि प्रार्थनापत्रकेत्वरितनिस्तारणपरध्यानकेनि

कियाजाये।
6.5 - /
बसूलीप्रमाण पत्रजारीकरनेकाकार्यआदेश निदेशकेअनुपालनके
-
स्तरपरप्राधिकरणकेसचिवद्वाराकियाजायेगा।वसूलीप्रमाण पत्रसे
. -
सम्बन्धि तकिसीत्रुटि केसुधारहेतुप्राधिकरणकीमा पीठमेंप्रार्थना पत्र
-
स्वीकारनहींकियाजायेगा।वसूलीप्रमाण पत्रमेंसंशोधनसम्बंधीकोई
- ,
प्रार्थना पत्रप्राप्तहोनेपरउसेसचिवकोसन्दर्भितकरदियाजायेगा।सचिव
. .
उ प्र रेराद्वारायथास्थि ति उभयपक्षोंकोसुनवाईकाअवसरप्रदानकरतेहुए
- ”
गुण दोषकेआधारपरऐसेप्रार्थनापत्रोंकानिस्तारणकियाजायेगा।

15
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
35. From the perusal of the aforesaid Clause 6, and more particularly
Clause 6.5, it would be clear that the Secretary, RERA, has been
authorized to receive applications relating to rectification/amendment of
the recovery certificate, and the said Secretary has further been
authorized to decide the said applications after affording an opportunity
to the parties concerned, on merits.
36. Now, in the same vein, it will be appropriate to notice the office
order dated 22.09.2025, which for the ease of reference is being
reproduced hereinafter:
“ . . . . - 152 ,
उ प्र स प्र भू सम्पदाविनियामकप्राधिकरणकी वींबैठक दिनांक
30.07.2024 .
मेंप्राप्तअनुमोदनकेअनुपालनमेंमा पीठोंकोअधिकारोंका
,
प्रतिनिधायन परिवादोंकीसुनवाईकीप्रक्रियाएवंपारितआदेशोंएवंनिर्देशों
31.10.2022
केक्रियान्वयनकेसम्बन्धमेंदिनांक कोनिर्गतमानकसंचालन
08.08.2024
प्रक्रियाकोअवक्रमितकरतेहुएदिनाक कोमानकसंचालन
, -6 -6.5
प्रक्रियाजारीकीगयीहै जिसकेप्रस्तर त्रुटि सुधारकेउपप्रस्तर में
-
निम्नवत्व्यवस्थानियतहैः
" /
वसूलीप्रमाणपत्रजारीकरनेकाकार्यआदेश निदेशकेअनुपालनकेस्तर

परप्राधिकरणकेसचिवद्वाराकियाजायेगा।वसूलीप्रमाणपत्रसेसम्बन्धि त
.
किसीत्रुटिकेसुधारहेतुप्राधिकरणकीमा पीठमेंप्रार्थनापत्रस्वीकारनहीं
-
कियाजायेगा।वसूलीप्रमाणपत्रमेंसंशोधनसम्बन्धीकोईप्रार्थना पत्रप्राप्त
, . .
होनेपरउसेसचिवकोसन्दर्भितकरदियाजायेगा।सचिव उ प्र रेराद्वारा
-
यथास्थि ति उभयपक्षोंकोसुनवाईकाअवसरप्रदानकरतेहुएगुण दोषके
- "
आधारपरऐसेप्रार्थना पत्रोंकानिस्तारणकियाजायेगा।
183 , 17.09.2025
प्राधिकरणकी वींबैठक दिनांक कोनिम्नवत्निर्णयलिया
-
गयाः
, . .
वसूलीप्रमाणपत्रमेंसंशोधनसम्बन्धीप्रार्थनापत्रसचिव उ प्र रेराको
, . .
सन्दर्भितकियाजायेगा।सचिव उ प्र रेराद्वाराशिकायतकोसम्बन्धि त
( )
कार्यालयकेराजस्व रिकवरी अधिकारीको सन्दर्भितकियाजायेगा।

सम्बन्धि तराजस्वरिकवरीअधिकारीउभयपक्षोंकीसुनवाईकरतेहुएप्रकरण

कागुणावगुणकेआधारपरपरीक्षणकरतेहुएवसूलीप्रमाणपत्रमेंसंशोधन
, . . ”
काप्रस्तावसचिव उ प्र रेराकोअन्ति मनिर्णयहेतुप्रस्तुतकियाजायेगा।
37. From the perusal of the aforesaid office order dated 22.09.2025, it
is clear that the Secretary, RERA, who was authorized to receive the
applications for rectification/amendment, who was in terms of the earlier
office order, quoted above, authorized to decide the same after affording
an opportunity to the parties concerned; but with this office order dated

16
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
22.09.2025, there has been a slight digression. That is to say, that all
applications addressed and received by the Secretary, RERA, relating to
rectification/amendment of the recovery certificate would be referred to
the concerned Revenue Recovery Officer, RERA, who would, after
hearing the parties on merits, examine the matter and submit its proposal
to the Secretary, RERA, for his final decision.
38. It would reveal that the role of the Revenue Recovery Officer,
RERA, is to hear the parties on the merit of their contentions and
thereafter submit its report/proposal for the final decision to be taken by
the Secretary, RERA.
39. Even when the order of delegation suggests that the Revenue
Recovery Officer would afford an opportunity to the parties concerned
on merits, it appears to be for the limited purpose of comprehending the
contention of the contesting parties to be easily ascertained and clearly
be reflected in the proposal/report to be submitted to the Secretary for
facilitating the decision-making process to enable the Secretary to give
his verdict.
40. Nevertheless, the aforesaid office order dated 22.09.2025, by any
stretch, cannot be construed as to confer or delegate any power to the
Revenue Recovery Officer to give a verdict or decide the application.
41. Now, in this backdrop, if the order impugned dated 09.07.2026 is
seen, it would indicate that the texture and tenor of the order impugned
passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer, RERA, is neither a report nor a
proposal, rather it is an expression of opinion on merits with trappings of

17
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
an order, which otherwise would have been passed by the Secretary,
RERA.
42. The said impugned order does not indicate that it is a
proposal/report which is being forwarded to the Secretary for his
consideration and verdict, nor does it indicate that the said order has
been passed by the Secretary relying upon the report of the Revenue
Recovery Officer. The impugned order would indicate that the Revenue
Recovery Officer heard the respective parties, and thereafter the
operative portion reads as under:
“
उपर्युक्तविवेचनाकेआधारपरमेसर्सतुल्सि यानीकंस्ट्रक्शंसएण्डडेवलपर्स
. . . , MATTERS
प्रा लि द्वारामा उच्चन्यायालय इलाहाबादमेंयोजित
UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 7332 of 2025 Tulsiani
Constructions And Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized
Signatory Sri Ravi Tiwari State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
बनाम
Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning U.P. Lko. And 4
Other . 19-12-2025
मेंमा उच्चन्यायालयद्वारापारितआदेशदिनांक के
- 26-11-2025
अनुपालनमेंप्रोमोटरकाप्रार्थना पत्रदिनांक तद्नुसारनिरस्त
”
करतेहुएप्रकरणनिस्तारितकियाजाताहै।पक्षकारतद्नुसारसूचितहो।
43. The above-quoted portion of the order impugned would indicate
that the Revenue Recovery Officer has rejected the application, which is
not within the domain of the Revenue Recovery Officer. In this view of
the matter, where the order impugned is without jurisdiction and in
excess of the authority conferred, which makes the order unsustained in
law. In such circumstances, the plea raised by the learned counsel for
the private respondent relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy of
an appeal under the Act may not be desirable.
44. The contention advanced by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla and Ms.
Prerna Jalan to the extent that only if the Revenue Recovery Officer
finds that some interference is required for rectification/amendment of

18
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
the recovery certificate, then the Revenue Recovery Officer is to place
the proposal before the Secretary, RERA, and not when it finds that no
interference is required, is wholly without substance and cannot be
accepted.
45. Ms. Prerna Jalan has also relied upon a decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in M/s K.D.P. Buildwell Private Limited vs. State
of U.P. and others: 2020 (20) AHC:26855-DB . However, as far as the
reliance placed by Ms. Jalan on the decision of a Division Bench of this
Court in K.D.P. Buildwell (supra) is concerned, the same has no
applicability in the instant case, as the said decision is of the year 2020,
whereas the office orders delegating the powers to the Secretary are of
08.08.2024 and 22.09.2025, and thus the said Division Bench had no
occasion to consider the said power of delegation and the office orders
which are the subject matter of dispute in these petitions.
46. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the
order impugned passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer, RERA, in
rejecting an application of rectification/amendment is not sustainable
and suffers from the vice of excess of jurisdiction conferred, hence is
liable to be set aside.
47. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer
rejecting the respective applications in the following Petitions: (i) order
dated 09.07.2026 in Writ Petition (A-227) No. 5771 of 2026; (ii) order
dated 09.07.2026 in Writ Petition (A-227) No. 6014 of 2026; (iii) order
dated 09.07.2026 in Writ Petition (A-227) No. 5843 of 2026; (iv) order
dated 09.01.2026 in Writ Petition (A-227) No. 5769 of 2026;

19
A227 No. - 5621 of 2026 & other
connected petitions
09.07.2026; and (v) order dated 12.08.2026 (though the order brought on
record as Annexure No. 1 is undated, however, the said date has been
mentioned in the relief clause) in Writ Petition (A-227) No. 5621 of
2026 shall stand set aside. The matter shall be remitted to the Revenue
Recovery Officer, RERA, before whom the parties shall appear on 18th
of November, 2026 who would afford an opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned, and thereafter it would submit its report/proposal to
the Secretary, RERA, who would then give its final verdict, and in order
to do so, if it finds that some clarification is required from any of the
parties, it may afford an opportunity to the said concerned party. It will
be open for the parties to file their submissions in writing if they so
desire, in support of their submissions before the Secretary, RERA.
48. The petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Jaspreet Singh,J.)
October 30, 2026
Asheesh
Digitally signed by :-
ASHEESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench