01Facts
The petitioner challenged a Chhattisgarh RERA order dated 18 June 2026, alleging, among other things, that it wrongly required her to pay maintenance charges and GST before issuance of an Occupancy/Completion Certificate on 4 January 2024.
¶ 2She also sought directions concerning possession and management of common areas and related relief under the RERA Act, 2016.
¶ 2Although the petitioner acknowledged an alternative remedy before the RERA Appellate Authority, she initially approached the High Court on the ground that the Authority was not functioning properly.
¶ 3RERA, the Municipal Corporation, and the State submitted that the Appellate Authority was functioning and hearing appeals and interim applications.
¶ 4–6The petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to appeal.
¶ 702Issues
i.Whether the petitioner should pursue the alternative remedy of an appeal before the RERA Appellate Authority, which the respondents submitted was functioning and hearing interim applications.
¶ 3–6ii.Whether the writ petition should be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal and an interim application before the RERA Appellate Authority.
¶ 7–903Law Applied
The Court did not determine the substantive application of the RERA Act or decide the merits of the challenge to the RERA order.
¶ 2The disposition proceeded on the petitioner’s request to withdraw and pursue an appeal before the RERA Appellate Authority, with the Court directing that the appeal and interim application be considered in accordance with law.
¶ 7–9Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 11Section 19Section 17Section 63Section 71Section 18
04Reasoning
The respondents stated that the RERA Appellate Authority was functioning and entertaining appeals and stay applications.
¶ 4–6The petitioner, in light of those submissions, sought leave to withdraw the writ petition and file an appeal with an appropriate interim application.
¶ 7The Court did not assess the merits of the petitioner’s substantive claims; it allowed the requested course and asked the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal, particularly the interim application, in accordance with law and endeavour to decide it expeditiously.
¶ 805Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the RERA Appellate Authority.
¶ 9It directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal and interim application in accordance with law and endeavour to decide them as expeditiously as possible.
¶ 8The Court made no determination on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.
Original Court PDF
MRS. ANJANA VEGADvsM/S AADHARSHILA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
