Allahabad HC Sets Aside RERA Recovery Officer’s Rejection Of Builders’ Delayed-Possession Interest Pleas, As Officer Could Only Report And Secretary Must Decide

Home buyers obtained RERA orders directing the petitioners to hand over possession and pay interest for delay.

Recovery certificates were subsequently issued, and the petitioners applied for their rectification, principally disputing the calculation period for interest.

Under an office order dated 8 August 2024, the Secretary, RERA, was authorised to decide rectification applications. A further office order dated 22 September 2025 provided that the Revenue Recovery Officer (RRO) would hear the parties and submit a proposal to the Secretary for a final decision.

The RRO instead rejected the applications. The petitioners challenged those orders under Article 227, contending that the RRO lacked authority to decide the applications.

Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 empowers the Authority to rectify a mistake apparent from the record within two years, subject to limits including that a substantive part of an order may not be amended through rectification.

Section 81 permits the Authority, by general or special written order, to delegate its functions, except its power to make regulations under Section 85.

The Court also considered Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016, and Regulations 13 and 14(c)(v)–(vi) of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019, concerning the Secretary’s and officers’ functions.

Under the relevant delegation orders, the Secretary retained final decision-making authority; the RRO’s role was to hear the parties and submit a report or proposal.

The Court read the 22 September 2025 order alongside the earlier delegation order of 8 August 2024. Although the later order assigned the RRO the task of hearing the parties and examining the matter, it directed the RRO to submit a proposal to the Secretary, who was to make the final decision.

The impugned orders, however, rejected the applications on their merits and did not purport to be reports or proposals for the Secretary’s consideration. The RRO had therefore exercised a decision-making power that had not been delegated to it.

The Court rejected the argument that a proposal was necessary only if the RRO favoured rectification: the delegated process applied whether or not the RRO considered rectification warranted.

Because the challenge concerned an apparent excess of jurisdiction, the Court declined to relegate the petitioners to the alternative appellate remedy.

It distinguished M/s K.D.P. Buildwell Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Others because that decision predated the relevant delegation orders.

It set aside the orders and remitted the matters to the RRO to hear the parties and submit a report or proposal to the Secretary, RERA, for a final decision. The parties were directed to appear before the RRO on 18 November 2026; they could also file written submissions before the Secretary.

The petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.