SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

HC Judgement: Court direct Bhopal Collector to enforce INR 3.26 lakh RERA order in 10 days or appear in court

#Law & Policy#India#Madhya Pradesh#Bhopal
Last Updated : 10th Mar, 2025
Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the Bhopal Collector to enforce a 2020 RERA directive within ten days or appear in court on March 12. The order follows a contempt petition filed by Arvind Verma, as the Collector failed to recover INR 23.26 lakh from a defaulting builder despite repeated court instructions. This case highlights RERA enforcement challenges across India, where builders delay payments and authorities fail to act. The central government is reviewing RERA regulations to strengthen compliance. The case underscores the need for stricter enforcement to protect homebuyers and uphold regulatory credibility.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has mandated that the Bhopal Collector implement a previous order from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) within ten days or appear in court at the next hearing. This action follows a contempt petition filed by Bhopal resident Arvind Verma, marking the second such petition due to non-compliance with the court's directives.


In 2020, RERA issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) against a builder, directing the Bhopal Collector to recover dues amounting to INR 23,26,363, including a 10% interest rate. However, the Collector failed to act, prompting Verma to file a petition in the High Court. In July 2023, the court ordered the Collector to execute the RRC within three months. Upon the expiration of this period without action, Verma filed a contempt petition. The court then granted a 30-day extension, warning that further delays would result in the Collector bearing the litigation costs. Despite this warning, no action was taken, leading to the current contempt petition and the court's recent directive.

The High Court, presided over by Justice A.K. Singh has scheduled the next hearing for March 12. The court has reiterated its order for the Bhopal Collector to enforce the RERA directive within the specified ten-day period or to appear in court to explain the non-compliance. Advocates Kapil Duggal and Dhruv Verma represent the petitioner in this case.

This issue highlights ongoing enforcement challenges under RERA in cities across India. In places like Delhi and Mumbai, similar delays in executing RERA orders have been reported. Builders and developers often delay payments or fail to comply with regulatory orders, leaving consumers to fight lengthy legal battles. These cases are raising awareness of the need for more efficient enforcement mechanisms to protect homebuyers.

The enforcement challenges faced by RERA underscore the need for stronger mechanisms to ensure compliance with regulatory orders. The central government is reportedly reviewing the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act of 2016 to address these issues and enhance the efficacy of RERA authorities.

This case in Bhopal highlights the importance of timely execution of RERA orders, not just for the consumers but also for the credibility of the regulatory framework itself. With local authorities under increasing scrutiny to ensure timely action, the Bhopal case serves as a reminder of the importance of swift enforcement in consumer protection.

Have something to say? Post your comment