BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court passed an interim order staying the operation and applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) to residential layouts/schemes, concerning the preliminary notification of acquisition that was issued before the commencement of the Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the interim order staying the Act till July 6, the next date of hearing, after hearing the petition filed by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), on the ground that it does not come within the definition of “promoter” as defined under Section 2(zk) of the RERA and does not fall within the jurisdiction of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA).
This was after hearing arguments on behalf of the BDA that it forms layouts on the basis of the acquisition and the BDA Act, which comes with several unknown aspects as regards the timing. If the concept of an ongoing project is applied to the BDA, where the implementation is on the basis of an acquisition of land, which is not in the complete control of the BDA, then the BDA would be put to untoward harm and injury, the counsel argued.
The court noted that the stay is granted to examine the applicability of the Act to the project’s statutory authorities like the BDA, who are implementing the projects on the basis of acquisition of the land, prior to such projects being initiated, prior to the commencement of the RERA on May 1, 2017.
At this stage, it would also have to be determined as to what kind of allotments the RERA would be applicable to and to what kind of allotments it would not be applicable, since the matter would touch upon the allotments made to several hundreds of the general public, the court observed.
The BDA contended that K-RERA is entertaining petitions and imposing hefty costs on it in numerous matters. Furthermore, the K-RERA is issuing directions like complete the formation of the layout and give amenities within a particular time frame, which, for reasons stated in the petition, cannot be complied with in the time-bound manner.
Prime facie, the K-RERA has no jurisdiction over the functioning of the petitioner, as it is regulated independently by the provisions of the BDA Act and the rules framed thereunder, the BDA argued.
