Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has stayed a recall order passed by the chairperson of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in a long-pending flat possession dispute in Mulund. The tribunal questioned the use of inherent powers to set aside earlier recovery proceedings and flagged the existence of two digitally signed versions of the same order with variations. The matter relates to a flat booked for over INR1 crore with possession promised in 2015. The tribunal has sought clarity on procedural lapses while restoring the position prior to the recall.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has granted an interim stay on a recall order issued by the chairperson of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in connection with a delayed possession dispute in Mulund, Mumbai. The tribunal observed that the chairperson's order had set aside earlier recovery directions passed by an adjudicating officer and raised serious procedural concerns. Advertisement
The dispute relates to a flat purchased in 2013 by Pramod Ashtekar and his wife in the ACE and Matchpoint project in Mulund for over INR1 crore. Possession was promised by December 2015. However, the project was delayed and later underwent a change in developer. In 2019, the homebuyers entered into consent terms with the original developer due to continued delay. When the successor developer allegedly failed to comply with these terms, the buyers approached MahaRERA again seeking enforcement.
An adjudicating officer of MahaRERA had passed an execution order in November 2024 directing issuance of a recovery warrant, which was later modified in March 2025. Subsequently, in September 2025, the chairperson passed an order recalling and setting aside the earlier execution proceedings. The tribunal noted that this recall was done without granting an effective hearing to all parties and questioned whether such inherent powers could be exercised when a statutory appeal mechanism was available.
During the hearing, the appellate tribunal also took note of the existence of two digitally signed versions of the same recall order, signed on consecutive days, with certain differences in content. It directed that this aspect be examined, indicating concern over the manner in which the order was processed and uploaded.
The tribunal held that the adjudicating officer had jurisdiction to deal with non-compliance and execution proceedings. By staying the chairperson's recall order, the appellate body has effectively restored the earlier position pending further hearing of the matter.
The case once again brings attention to enforcement challenges under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act in Maharashtra. While MahaRERA has been active in passing recovery and refund orders in delayed projects over the past few years, execution and compliance continue to be areas of dispute, especially in projects where developers have changed or entered insolvency proceedings.
The matter will now proceed before the appellate tribunal for detailed consideration of the legal issues involved, including the scope of the chairperson's powers and the validity of the recall order.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
