In a significant ruling reinforcing the finality of RERA orders and the importance of timely legal challenges, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by real estate developer Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., declining to quash a 2019 refund order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in his judgment pronounced today, refused to declare the December 17, 2019 order — directing Marvel to refund ₹1,35,99,246 along with 10.20% interest per annum to flat purchaser Mr. Siddharth Mohan Palesha — as a nullity. The court also declined to interfere with the subsequent October 8, 2021 Recovery Order, which treats the unpaid amount as arrears of land revenue recoverable through the Collector.
The developer had argued that the Adjudicating Officer who passed the refund order lacked jurisdiction, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP. Marvel contended that only compensation could be adjudicated by such officers under Section 71 of the RERA Act, rendering any refund direction non est (non-existent in law) even years later.
Justice Sundaresan rejected this interpretation, holding that Newtech primarily addressed the powers of Whole Time Members of RERA to order refunds and delegation under Section 81 of the Act. The Supreme Court did not rule that Adjudicating Officers were barred from directing refunds when powers were validly delegated. Reading judgments out of context or like statutes was cautioned against.
More crucially, the court emphasised delay and laches. The 2019 order attained finality because Marvel never filed a statutory appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act within the prescribed 120-day limit (60 days + 60 days condonable). The writ petition itself was filed only in August 2024 — nearly five years after the original order and almost three years after the Newtech judgment.
Citing Supreme Court precedents such as U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh and State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, the judge observed that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be used to reopen long-crystallised rights, especially by parties who remained indolent.
The court noted that Marvel appeared to have adopted a reactive approach, filing the petition after the homebuyer approached the High Court in a separate writ (WP 2271 of 2024) seeking enforcement. It also highlighted that Marvel is connected to Marveledge Realtors (a sister concern where a Division Bench had granted some relief in a similar matter), but distinguished the facts due to the inordinate delay here.
The judgment underscores that even if a subsequent higher court ruling clarifies the law, it does not automatically reopen matters that have attained finality without timely challenge. Homebuyers’ rights, once crystallised through unappealed RERA orders, cannot be easily disturbed years later.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Recovery proceedings against Marvel can now proceed.
This ruling is likely to discourage developers from belatedly challenging old RERA refund orders on jurisdictional grounds post-Newtech, sending a strong message on timely compliance and the protection of homebuyer interests under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Also Read: No Agreement Of Sale Means No Refund, says MahaRERA
