HREAT Issue of maintainability goes to the root of the jurisdiction

10. Even with regard to the claim of compensation on account of alleged structural defects, the law requires that the complaint must be filed and processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 28 and 29 of the Haryana RERA Rules, 2017. In the present case, the complaint combines multiple reliefs relating both to development works and compensation without following the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the complaints could not have been considered by the Adjudicating Officer.

11. *The objection raised by the appellant-promoter regarding maintainability goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer. Such an issue ought to be decided at the threshold before proceeding further in the matter. However, the Adjudicating Officer proceeded without deciding this issue, which is not in consonance with the settled legal principles.*

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Adjudicating Officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law and has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in deciding the issue of maintainability at the appropriate stage.

13. *Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order in all the above-mentioned appeals is hereby set aside and the complaints filed before the Adjudicating Officer are held to be non-maintainable.*

HREAT in Appeal No. 08 of 2026 & connected appeals

H-REAT-8-2026 titled as St. Patricks Realty Pvt. Ltd. V/s NEHA PRASAD dated 01-Jul-2026

 

Entitlement of Delay Possession Charge, Limitation Period

 

10. The contention that execution of conveyance deed or delivery of possession extinguishes the rights of the allottees under the Act cannot be accepted. The Scheme of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the status of allottee does not stand obliterated merely because title has been conveyed. Any other interpretation would defeat the beneficial object of the legislation and permit promoter to evade liability despite admitted deficiencies or delays.

16. The preliminary objection regarding limitation raised by the promoter deserves to be rejected. The proceedings in the present matter have been instituted under the Act. A perusal of the scheme of the Act reveals that while the legislature has specifically prescribed period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 44 and for other specified proceedings, no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a complaint before the Authority under Section 31 of the Act. It is settled principle of statutory interpretation that where the legislature has consciously provided limitation in certain provisions and omitted the same in others, such omission cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation. Consequently, no limitation period can be imported into Section 31 of the Act by implication.

18. It is also well-settled that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to proceedings before special Tribunals or authorities unless such applicability is expressly provided by the statute creating the forum. The Act neither incorporates nor makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation Act to complaints instituted before the Authority. In the absence of any express legislative mandate, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat a remedy created under a legislation enacted for protection of allottees and regulation of the real estate sector.

HREAT in Appeal No. 946 of 2024 and connected appeals  

H-REAT-946-2024 tiled as EMAAR INDIA LIMITED v/s POONAM GOEL dated 02-Jul-2026