Background facts

In October 2018, the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry (MCHI) filed a complaint with the authority alleging that CIDCO failed to register as a ‘Promoter’ under Section 3 of RERA, 2016 after launching several schemes.

These schemes involved the allocation, sale and disposal of land to MCHI members through auctions, advertisements and marketing.

On 06/03/2019, the authority disposed of the complaint holding that the sale transactions by CIDCO involved immovable properties for which development clearances were still pending from the relevant Planning Authority. Therefore, these transactions cannot be considered sales for parcel development under the definition of a Real Estate Project.

Further in Paragraph 8 of order, the authority held that if the Claimant’s construction projects on the plots purchased from CIDCO require certain infrastructure (such as roads or utilities) which CIDCO should provide, then the Claimant or their members may enumerate CIDCO as promoter (land owner) when registering their projects with MahaRERA.

Aggrieved by the Authority’s order dated 03.06.2016, both parties appealed to the Court. MCHI seeks to set aside, set aside or modify the order of the Authority, while CIDCO seeks to set aside Clause 8 of the order.

Issues before the Tribunal

1. Whether CIDCO falls within the definition of a Promoter for city development activities.

2. Whether those urban development activities need to be registered under RERA.
3. Whether the provisions of RERA apply to CIDCO which is a statutory government organization in view of its functions under the MRTP Act, 1966.