The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MSA No.51 of 2025 Sampurna Contech Pvt. Ltd. Khordha …. Appellant Mr. Prakash Ku. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Suprava Dash and another …. Respondents Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 10.09.2025 Order No. 03. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Instant appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-4 passed in connection with in OREAT Appeal No. 29 of 2025 on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been provided reasonable opportunity of hearing by the learned RERA with the application on the maintainability of the complaint was disposed of vide Annexure-3 and it was challenged before the learned Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (shortly called as ‘the OREAT’). The further submission is that the learned OREAT disposed of the appeal without considering the Page 1 of 6 grounds advanced by the appellant. It is submitted that an opportunity of hearing should have been provided by the learned RERA and having failed to do so, the appellant is prejudiced, hence, therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-4 is required to be set aside with a direction to rehear the application on maintainability disposing it of on merit. 4. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the respondents produced the certified copies of the order sheets of the learned RERA for the Court’s perusal and the same are gone through. It is submitted by Mr. Maharana, learned counsel that the application challenging the maintainability of the complaint was received with an objection filed on 19th November, 2024 and thereafter, hearing has taken place on 6th December, 2024 followed by the impugned order at Annexure-3. In response to the above, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no such hearing had taken place on 6th December, 2024 in view of the order dated 19th November, 2024 as it was fixed on the said date for orders and for filing of the correct address of respondent No.2 by the complainant. 5. On merits, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the strength of a construction agreement, the appellant is involved with the respondents even though the original project was registered under the RERA. The submission is that the appellant cannot be treated as a promoter as per the RERA and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable at the behest of the respondents. To counter the same, Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the respondents Page 2 of 6 submits that the project has been registered under RERA and while claiming so, he produced a copy of the brochure at Annexure-1 to the memo filed today in course of hearing. It is further submitted that the project by name ‘Sampuma Royal Orchid’ received BDA & RERA approval as made to reveal from the brochure itself and it was followed by the construction agreement in terms of the agreement and payment plan and therefore, the appellant cannot wriggle out and claim that it was a plotting scheme and in facts, the plots were sold to the respondents. The submission is that the appellant is amenable to the RERA and since it is a registered project under the RERA, rightly, therefore, the complaint was filed by the respondents and it was entertained and ultimately, the application challenging its maintainability was disposed of vide Annexure-3 and upheld in appeal by the learned OREAT. 6. In so far as the claim of the appellant regarding reasonable opportunity of hearing having not been provided by the learned RERA is concerned, the same is not borne out of record. Of course, in the order dated 19th November, 2024 of the learned RERA, it is made to suggest that the complaint was fixed to 16th December, 2024 for orders but from the impugned order at Annexure-3 nothing is revealed to show that the hearing has taken place in absence of the appellant. It is claimed by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant that in an appeal pending before the learned OREAT against an interim order, upon a disclosure made by the respondents, the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-3 was learnt for the Page 3 of 6 first time and thereafter, the appeal was filed but from Annexure-3 and on a bare reading of the same, nowhere it is made to suggest about the absence of the appellant. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that hearing has taken place and thereafter, the learned RERA passed the order dated 16th December, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3. Admittedly, the appellant did not seek recall of the order of the learned RERA, instead approached the learned OREAT challenging Annexure-3. In the above said backdrop of facts, the Court is of the view that the appellant cannot claim that no hearing has taken place on 6th December, 2024. In other words, the Court is not inclined and in favour of accepting the plea of the appellant as to their absence on the date fixed while considering the maintainability of the complaint followed by the impugned order at Annexure-3. 7. As regards, the merits of the case, on the one hand, it is challenge by the appellant that the complaint is not maintainable as the parties had a construction agreement and it was in respect of a plotting scheme. It is fairly admitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant that the project was initially RERA approved but subsequently, it was turned to a plotting scheme and as a consequence, plots have been sold to the respondents with the execution of the sale deeds. The copies of the sale deeds along with the construction agreement are also produced by Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the respondents along with the brochure. As per the payment plan, so revealed from the brochure, the Court finds that initially Page 4 of 6 booking amount was to be received and followed by phase wise payments including 20% of total cost on land and construction agreement. The learned OREAT has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant managed registration before RERA with respect to the plotting scheme and also the approval of the BDA and it runs contrary to the brochure as initially it was in respect of a project duly approved by and under the RERA. Since from the brochure, the Court finds that the project related to 73 duplex units and it received approval of the RERA and with such an understanding, the respondents made the payments, it may not be appropriate on the part of the appellant thereafter to claim that the same is in respect of a plotting scheme. But, at present, any such conclusion either way is likely to prejudice the appellant and respondents as well. Having said that, as upon a bare reading of the brochure, the Court finds that since the project to be a RERA approved and prima facie established, any such claim of the appellant that the plots have been sold to the respondents under a scheme should not be accepted and however leaving it be considered as a defence before the learned RERA. In other words, the conclusion is that on any such ground, it would not be just and proper to hold that the complaint is not at all maintainable. The Court is also of the view that the appellant should be allowed to raise the grounds advanced at present before the learned RERA to be dealt with while disposing of the complaint. So, therefore, the final view of the Court is that the learned OREAT did not commit any serious error or illegality, while disposing of Page 5 of 6 OREAT Appeal No. 29 of 2025 confirming the order of the learned RERA as per Annexure-2. 8. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. 10. Issue copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2025 12:10:00 Page 6 of 6