The Delhi High Court recently ruled in Praveen Chhabra v. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that the real estate tribunal does not have the authority to bring cases on its own, i.e., sou moto cognizance The case involved the tribunal's attempt to oversee building activities in the National Capital Territory. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), according to single-judge Justice Yashwant Varma, limits the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to reviewing appeals of decisions made by either the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) or the Adjudicating Authority under the RERA.
The Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal "does not bestow or vest any authority or jurisdiction upon it to start proceedings on its own volition." In the current case, the Appellate Tribunal issued orders of restriction against several residential and commercial projects, as well as the construction activities associated with them, that were the subject of suo moto proceedings in the national capital.
When Praveen Chhabra, a construction developer, learned that the designs he had filed couldn't be authorised in light of the Appellate Tribunal judgement, he became agitated and went to the High Court. The Appellate Tribunal, according to the Court, didn't take into account the scope of the Act. The High Court said that the Appellate Tribunal had "proceeded on the faulty and unjustified assumption that all projects were likely to be compulsorily registered under the Act."
The judge stated that Sections 43 and 44 of the RERA Act, which provide for the establishment of tribunals and define what disputes may be raised before such tribunals, were used to create the Appellate Tribunal as a forum whose jurisdiction could be invoked by a person who was wronged by an order, decision, or direction of the Authority. "No original or plenary jurisdiction or authority is conferred, recognised, or contemplated by Sections 43 and 44 of the Act to be exercised by the Appellate Tribunal.
The Bench concluded that the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing appeals of decisions rendered by either the Authority or the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellate Tribunal was established by law. It is not a position that can be acknowledged as having inherent authority. The hierarchy of conventional judicial institutions that make up our nation's legal system does not include the Tribunal. It is an appellate forum that was established in accordance with the Act's requirements.
The Court also takes into account the important significance of the given directive. In the National Capital Territory of Delhi, it has practically prohibited any construction. The court quashed the decision after observing that it was not proven that the aforementioned injunction had been preceded by any investigation into the legality of a specific project or even a preliminary appraisal of its legality. However, the court made it clear that he was not interfering with the Authority's ability to independently review individual projects in accordance with the RERA Act
What is Suo Moto Cognizance?
An action taken or performed by a government agency, court, or other central authority on their own alarm is referred to as a Suo Moto cognizance. When a court learns about a right or obligation being violated through the media or notification from a third party, it accepts the case under Suo Moto Cognizance. The provisions for filing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India are outlined in Articles 32 of the Indian Constitution and 226 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. As a result, the court now has the authority to bring a case after taking the situation under consideration.