MARVEL LANDMARKS PVT. LTD. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Finality of RERA Orders - Subsequent Supreme Court Clarifications in Newtech Cannot Reopen Concluded Matters or Invalidate Delegated Powers of Adjudicating Officers via Writ Jurisdiction after Inordinate Delay.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16466
Decision Date: 07-04-2026
List of Laws
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Constitution of India, Article 226; Doctrine of Finality and Res Judicata; Principles of Judicial Precedent
- Facts: The Petitioner, a real estate developer, was ordered by an Adjudicating Officer of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("Authority") on December 17, 2019, to refund approximately Rs. 1.36 crores with interest to a flat purchaser. The Petitioner did not appeal this order, and it attained finality. Subsequently, in 2021, a recovery warrant was issued. The Petitioner later filed this Writ Petition in 2024 seeking to quash the 2019 order as non est, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP (2021). The Petitioner argued that under Newtech, an Adjudicating Officer lacks jurisdiction to order refunds, a power supposedly reserved for the Authority itself, thus making the original order a nullity.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Bombay High Court via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the 2019 refund order and the 2021 recovery order on jurisdictional grounds.
- Issue: Does the law declared by the Supreme Court in Newtech render a final, unappealed refund order passed by an Adjudicating Officer non est or a nullity, especially when challenged after significant delay?
- Holding: No, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The court held that the Newtech judgment does not automatically invalidate concluded matters that have attained finality, nor does it prohibit the delegation of refund powers to an Adjudicating Officer under Section 81 of the RERA Act.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Newtech clarified that while the Authority has the power to grant refunds, it did not strip the Authority of its power under Section 81 to delegate such functions to an Adjudicating Officer. The Court distinguished the present case from Newtech by noting that the latter dealt with whether an Adjudicating Officer had "exclusive" jurisdiction, not whether the Authority could specifically delegate the refund power. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of res judicata and the "Blackstonian theory" of precedents, asserting that a subsequent change in law by a judicial decision does not allow for the reopening of long-closed matters. The Petitioner's gross delay (nearly five years since the original order and three years since Newtech) and the fact that the order had partaken the character of a decree meant that discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in favor of an "indolent" party.
🔒 For Members Only