The Allahabad High Court on October 7, 2025, heard a petition challenging the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s (UPRERA) orders which allegedly exceeded its statutory authority and violated the legislative framework of the RERA Act, 2016 . Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Amitabh Kumar Rai observed that while a statutory remedy exists before the UPRERA Tribunal, the order dated 20.06.2023 had been issued without proper regard to the statutory provisions of the Act, was prima facie invalid and deserved to be stayed.
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Authority on November 14, 2024, along with a subsequent notice dated August 19, 2025, and an office order issued on June 20, 2023, through which the Authority delegated its adjudicatory powers under Section 31 of the Act to the Adjudicating Officer. The petitioner argued that matters concerning possession or delay in delivery can only be decided by the Authority or its members, while the Adjudicating Officer’s role under Section 71 is limited to awarding compensation in cases covered by Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 which involved loss, delay, or misrepresentation suffered by buyers. The petitioner further contended that extending these powers to the Adjudicating Officer was beyond the scope of the statute and contrary to the structure of the Act.The respondents argued that vacancies in the composition of the Authority do not invalidate its decisions as stated in Section 30(b) of the Act. They also relied on M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1044 and stated that Section 81 of the Act empowered the Authority to delegate its powers or functions to any member, officer, or other person, subject to specified conditions.
The Court found the delegation order to be contrary to the statutory scheme of the RERA Act 2016, which mandates that complaints under Section 31 relating to possession or delay must be decided by the Authority or its members, while issues of compensation fall within the Adjudicating Officer’s jurisdiction under Section 71. The Court observed that the delegation order had been issued without proper consideration of the statutory provisions and held the delegation to be prima facie invalid. Accordingly, the Court issued notice to respondent no. 3 and directed that the petitioner shall take steps both ways and file an affidavit of service within a week, along with documentary evidence, including a downloaded copy of the India Post website tracking report, and stayed the operation of the order and notice dated 14.11.2024 and 19.08.2025 until the next hearing on October 27, 2025.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Kumar Mathur
For the Respondent(s) : C.S.C Shobhit Mohan Shukla
