The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), Raipur, has overturned a ruling of the state Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) that had instructed a promoter to demolish guard rooms and build a nine-metre-wide internal road in front of an allottee’s home in a Jagdalpur housing project.
The decision, delivered on 12 November 2025, came after the tribunal reserved judgment earlier in the month. A Bench comprising Chairman Sharad Kumar Gupta and Member Arvind Singh Cheema allowed Appeal No. 363/2025, filed by Bajpai Signature Villa through Rakesh Kumar Bajpai against Malkhit Singh and his wife, Avanish Kaur. The matter arose from a RERA order issued in October 2025 regarding the Bajpai Signature Villa project located in Jagdalpur, Bastar district.
Malkhit Singh and Avanish Kaur purchased House No. 08 in the project through a registered sale deed in May 2024. They later alleged that the promoter had failed to construct the nine-metre-wide internal road shown in the approved layout. They also claimed that guard rooms and security cabins put up near their home restricted their access.
RERA took note of the complaint and directed the promoter to demolish the disputed guard rooms and construct the road as per the sanctioned plan. The promoter challenged this decision before the appellate tribunal, arguing that RERA had exceeded its jurisdiction. According to the promoter, the guard rooms were located outside the registered project area, making the authority’s directions legally unsustainable.
While contesting the RERA order, the promoter also sought to introduce an additional document: a photocopy of an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, in July 2025. The promoter argued that this document clarified the status and location of the disputed structures and was necessary to adjudicate the appeal fairly.
The tribunal rejected this request. Citing a 2022 Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it noted that appellate bodies cannot normally expand the evidentiary record unless the applicant proves that the material could not have been produced earlier or is critical for resolving the appeal. Since the record already included adequate material and the SDO’s order was a public document accessible earlier, the request was dismissed.
A key part of the tribunal’s ruling was its finding that RERA had framed the issues incorrectly. During the hearing before RERA, the allottees’ counsel had informed the authority that they were no longer pressing their grievance about the nine-metre-wide internal road. Despite this, RERA treated the road issue as the central point of determination and issued directions based on it.
The tribunal examined the pleadings, site photographs, and other documents. It concluded that the guard rooms and security cabins in question were situated outside the registered real estate project. This finding had significant implications because RERA’s jurisdiction extends only to matters connected to a registered real estate project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The appellate Bench referred to Section 31(1) of the Act, which permits complaints only regarding violations connected to a registered project. Since the disputed structures were outside the project boundaries, they could not automatically fall within the regulatory scope of RERA. Any dispute about them, the tribunal held, must be taken before the competent civil authority or another forum empowered under local laws.
Based on this reasoning, the tribunal concluded that RERA lacked jurisdiction to order demolition or construction in this case.
The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside RERA’s directions regarding both the nine-metre-wide road and the guard rooms. It added that the allottees were free to approach the appropriate authority or court if they sought remedies under other legal provisions. The tribunal also fixed advocates’ fees at ₹7,000 for each party and directed preparation of a cost memo.
This decision is expected to have wider relevance for real estate disputes in the state, particularly on two issues: the limits of RERA’s jurisdiction and the importance of framing issues accurately based on what the parties actually argue during the hearing.
Case Details : Appeal No. 363 of 2025, Bajpai Signature Villa Versus Malkhit Singh & Another
Counsels : For Appellant/respondent in complaint/promoter: Mr. Shashwat Surana, Advocate.
For Respondents/complainants/allottees: Mr. Pushkar Bhandarkar, Advocate.
