Court holds Revenue Recovery Officer exceeded jurisdiction by rejecting rectification applications directly; mandates final decision by RERA Secretary after report from Revenue Recovery Officer
In a significant judgment delivered on 30th October 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) under Justice Jaspreet Singh clarified the scope of delegation of powers within the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("RERA Act"). The Court set aside a series of orders passed by the Revenue Recovery Officer (RRO) of RERA which had directly rejected rectification applications concerning recovery certificates issued under RERA orders.
The batch of five petitions involved developers challenging the legality of orders by the RRO rejecting their applications for rectification or amendment of recovery certificates. These certificates were issued pursuant to complaints filed by home buyers regarding delayed possession and associated interest payments. The developers contended that the interest calculation period in the recovery certificates was incorrect and sought rectification under Section 39 of the RERA Act.
The controversy arose because the RRO had passed final orders on these rectification applications, rejecting them on merits. The developers argued that as per the delegation framework within RERA, the power to finally decide rectification applications rested exclusively with the Secretary of RERA, not the RRO. The RRO's role was limited to hearing parties and submitting a report or proposal to the Secretary, who would then make the final decision.
The Court analyzed the provisions of the RERA Act, particularly Sections 2(i), 32, 34-40, 39, and 81, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016 (notably Rule 21), and the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019 (Regulations 13 and 14). It examined two office orders issued by RERA in August 2024 and September 2025, which delegated the function of entertaining rectification applications to the Secretary and further assigned the RRO the role of hearing parties and submitting a proposal to the Secretary.
The Court held that these office orders did not empower the RRO to pass final orders on rectification applications. Instead, the RRO's role was purely advisory, to assist the Secretary by hearing parties and preparing a report. The Secretary alone had the jurisdiction to decide rectification applications. The impugned orders by the RRO were thus held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
Rejecting the State's argument that alternate remedies before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) were available, the Court invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It held that where an order is ex facie without jurisdiction and no disputed factual issue requiring evidence arises, the High Court can intervene directly without relegating the parties to alternate statutory remedies.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the RRO in all five petitions and remitted the matters back to the RRO. The RRO was directed to hear the parties afresh, submit its report to the Secretary, and the Secretary would then pass a reasoned final order on the rectification applications. The Court permitted the parties to file written submissions before the Secretary, if they wished.
This judgment reinforces the principle that delegated powers must be exercised strictly within the scope authorized by the parent authority and clarifies the hierarchical decision-making process within RERA regarding rectification of recovery certificates. It also underscores that final adjudicatory power cannot be usurped by an officer who only holds delegated functions of inquiry and report.
The judgment brings relief to developers by ensuring that rectification applications will be decided by the competent authority after due consideration, and also protects home buyers' interests by upholding the statutory scheme of RERA.
Bottom Line:
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Rectification/amendment of recovery certificate - Though RERA had delegated power to Secretary and later required Revenue Recovery Officer to hear parties and submit report/proposal, Revenue Recovery Officer had no authority to finally decide and reject rectification application - Such rejection order is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside - Availability of alternate remedy not a bar where impugned order is ex facie without jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Sections 2(i), 32, 34-40, 39, 81; Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016 Rule 21; Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019 Regulations 13, 14; Constitution of India Article 227
