M & Z Legal – Advocates & Solicitors

Introduction

RERA divides functions between the Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer. Confusion over this allocation can produce maintainability objections, misdirected prayers and delays.

The statutory design

Section 71 provides for appointment of an adjudicating officer to adjudge compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19. Section 72 specifies factors relevant to quantifying compensation. These provisions should be read alongside the Authority’s powers to issue regulatory directions and determine refund and interest claims within its jurisdiction.

Guidance from Newtech Promoters

In Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court explained the division of functions between the Authority and the adjudicating officer. In broad terms, adjudication of compensation under the identified provisions lies with the adjudicating officer, while claims for refund and interest are not simply converted into compensation claims because they involve monetary relief.

Incidental issues

To assess compensation, the adjudicating officer may need to consider contractual terms, statutory defaults, causation and documentary evidence. That does not confer a general power to decide every declaration, penalty, project-registration or title dispute that a claimant might append to the compensation prayer.

Drafting consequences

A complaint combining refund, interest, penalty and compensation should identify the statutory basis and competent forum for each prayer. The same factual background can support different reliefs, but the forum’s jurisdiction must not be assumed from the commonality of facts.

Conclusion

Section 71 is a specialised compensation jurisdiction, not a general transfer of all RERA disputes to the adjudicating officer. Proper classification of the relief sought is essential to effective enforcement.