Link MahaRERA Portal To Website Of Civic Bodies: Bombay High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Transparency, Safeguard Homebuyers
Sanjana Dadmi
20 Nov 2024 10:30 AM IST
With a view to safeguard the interest of homebuyers, the Bombay High Court has issued certain guidelines to the State government, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority and municipal authorities to ensure transparency and accountability in real estate project registrations.
The guidelines include the integration of the websites of the planning authorities with that of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) and the verification of all commencement certificates during project registration.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar in its November 19 order issued the directions in a PIL filed by Sandeep Pandurang Patil.
The petitioner sought directions to establish a policy for coordination among the State, Maharashtra RERA and local authorities, to prevent fraudulent registration of real estate projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA Act), 2016. The petitioner argued that a lack of coordinated mechanism between MahaRERA and local authorities for verification of documents submitted by developers contravened the objectives of the RERA Act, particularly with respect to protection of home buyers from fraudulent practices.
The Court issued the following directions to the State authorities:
(i) Integration with MahaRERA website
The Court directed the State to ensure rigorous compliance with the GR issued by the Urban Development Department on February 23, 2023 which mandated all the municipal corporations, municipalities and urban local authorities to complete the integration of their respective website with the MahaRERA's website.
Thus, all the municipal corporations, municipalities and urban local authorities in the State have to link their website with the MahaRERA portal. The Court remarked such integration is necessary for establishing a streamlined process to verify the authenticity of certificates submitted in real estate registrations, as envisaged in Section 4 of the RERA Act.
For context, Section 4 requires the promoter to apply for registration in a prescribed manner, which includes providing an authenticated copy of approvals and commencement certificate from the competent authority (section 4(2)(c)) and submitting the sanctioned plan, layout plan, and project specifications (section 4(2)(d)).
The Court observed that the State should monitor the compliance periodically to “uphold the integrity of project documentation.”
The Court stated that until such integration is complete, the authorities must upload commencement and occupation certificates on their websites within 48 hours of issuance of such certificates.
(ii) Integration of Building Plan Management System (BPMS)
The Court further directed the State to complete the integration of the 'Building Plan Management System (BPMS)' with MahaRERA's online system within three months of the court's judgment. The BMPS aims to standardize various building permission processes at all municipal councils across Maharashtra.
The Court observed that such integration would enable MahaRERA to cross-verify certificates against records in BPMS, thus mitigating the risk of fraud and enhancing regulatory oversight.
(iii) Verification of commencement certificates
The Court ordered the MahaRERA to verify the authenticity of all commencement certificates submitted by promoters during project registration, effective from June 19, 2023. It stated that the registrations should be granted only upon verification.
It observed, “This verification process aligns with Sections 4 and 5 of the RERA Act, ensuring that only projects with genuine and verified documentation are registered.”
Court declines relief of re-scrutiny of registration certificates
The petitioner also sought re-scrutiny of all registration certificates issued by MahaRERA across the State. However, the Court declined the relief and observed that it cannot mandate re-scrutiny in the absence of any specific instances of fraud.
The Court stated that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, courts should not engage in 'speculative or roving inquiries'. It stated that the party must first present prima facie evidence of forgery or fraud specific to identified projects.
Here, the Court noted that the relief sought by the petitioner was a “broad, speculative inquiry into the integrity of all real estate project registrations across the State.”
It observed, “To mandate such re-scrutiny in the absence of concrete, specific instances of alleged forgery would not only overreach judicial authority but also risk encumbering regulatory bodies with speculative investigations that lack substantive grounding. Consequently, the petitioner must provide factual material related to specific projects to substantiate such claims and avoid a sweeping and unsubstantiated mandate for statewide re-scrutiny.”
The Court thus refused to order re-scrutiny of all registration certificates on the ground that the petitioner did not provide any substantive material to substantiate the allegations of widespread fraud.
With this, the Court disposed of the petition.
Case title: Sandeep Pandurang Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Public Interest Litigation No.49 of 2021)
