Patna HC Deems ‘Chhabilchandra Enclave’ Registered, Quashes RERA’s 8-Month-Late Rejection Over Unprescribed Co-Op Papers

The petitioner applied to the Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) to register its proposed project, “Chhabilchandra Enclave.” The judgment records the application date as 19 June 2025, although other parts refer to 9 June 2025.

RERA raised queries, including demands for the housing society’s bye-laws, approval from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for multi-storey construction, and any amendment to the 1982 sale deed. The petitioner responded to the queries and relied on a municipal building-plan sanction and a society-issued NOC.

RERA issued a notice proposing rejection on 18 December 2025; after a hearing on 8 January 2026, it rejected the application by Form D dated 16 February 2026.

The petitioner sought to quash those actions and obtain recognition of deemed registration under Section 5(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”).

Section 4(2) of the RERA Act specifies the documents and information a promoter must provide with a registration application; further documents may be required only as prescribed by rules or regulations.

Under Section 5(1), the Authority must grant or reject an application within 30 days of receipt, and Section 5(2) provides that the project is deemed registered if it does neither within that period.

The Court applied the principle that statutory language must be given effect without adding requirements or rendering another provision redundant, relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., and Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal.

It also relied on Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, which held that the Authority must choose between grant and rejection within the statutory period and cannot keep an application pending on grounds of alleged deficiencies.

The Court further cited Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone for the mandatory character of a time limit accompanied by a specified consequence for non-compliance.

The Court found that the three disputed documents were not specified in Section 4(2), Rule 3 of the Bihar RERA Rules, 2017, or any identified regulation; RERA therefore could not treat their absence as making the application incomplete.

The application and accompanying materials addressed the statutory requirements, and RERA did not identify any required Section 4(2) document that remained missing.

Since Section 5 runs from receipt of the application and contains no provision suspending or restarting the 30-day period when queries are raised, the Authority’s later queries did not stop time from running.

Applying the date stated in its findings, the Court held that the period expired on 19 July 2025, well before the December notice and subsequent rejection.

The petitioner’s later request for time to provide the disputed documents could not waive or undo the deemed-registration consequence that had already arisen by operation of law.

The Court also held that the cited municipal decisions did not enlarge RERA’s powers under the Act.

It allowed the writ petition, quashed the notice dated 18 December 2025, the order dated 8 January 2026, and Form D dated 16 February 2026, and directed RERA to provide the petitioner with a registration number, login ID, and password upon production or receipt of the order.