The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that a Revenue Recovery Officer of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has no power to decide applications seeking rectification of a recovery certificate, as the final decision rests with the Secretary, RERA. The Court set aside the orders by which the Revenue Recovery Officer had rejected such applications filed by a real estate developer and sent the matters back for a fresh process.
Justice Jaspreet Singh allowed a batch of petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sunshine Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., holding that the impugned orders suffered from the vice of excess of jurisdiction.
Background
The petitioner company developed Golf View Apartments in Sushant Golf City, Lucknow. On complaints by homebuyers, RERA, by its order dated 23.05.2022, directed the company to hand over possession within 45 days and to pay interest for the delayed period at 1% above the MCLR determined by the State Bank.
A recovery certificate was issued on 08.07.2025. The company then applied for its rectification, contending that the period for which interest was calculated was incorrect. In an earlier petition, the High Court on 12.12.2025 directed RERA to decide the pending application expeditiously. The Revenue Recovery Officer subsequently rejected the rectification applications, which were challenged in the present batch.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Jaideep Narain Mathur, assisted by Advocates Vidhu Bhushan Kalia and Saurabh Misra, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that RERA had delegated its power of rectification under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the Secretary through an office order dated 08.08.2024. A later office order dated 22.09.2025 only required the Revenue Recovery Officer to hear the parties and submit a proposal to the Secretary for a final decision. He argued that the officer deciding the applications himself rendered the orders void ab initio.
Advocate Prerna Jalan, appearing for the homebuyers, raised preliminary objections, contending that the orders were appealable before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. She argued that the officer had merely found that no rectification was needed, and that the petitioners were raising technical objections to delay implementation of RERA’s order.
Advocate Shobhit Mohan Shukla, appearing for RERA, supported the orders, submitting that the officer had lawfully delegated power and had merely reiterated the Authority’s view.
Court’s Findings
Examining the office order dated 22.09.2025, the Court found that the Revenue Recovery Officer’s role is to hear the parties and submit a report or proposal for the final decision to be taken by the Secretary. The Court held that the office order “by any stretch, cannot be construed as to confer or delegate any power to the Revenue Recovery Officer to give a verdict or decide the application.”
Turning to the impugned order, the Court noted that it “is neither a report nor a proposal, rather it is an expression of opinion on merits with trappings of an order, which otherwise would have been passed by the Secretary, RERA.”
As the orders were without jurisdiction and in excess of the authority conferred, the Court held that relegating the petitioners to the alternate remedy of appeal may not be desirable.
Rejecting the argument that a proposal is needed only when the officer finds some rectification necessary, the Court said the contention “is wholly without substance and cannot be accepted.”
The Court also held that the Division Bench decision in M/s K.D.P. Buildwell Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others, relied on by Ms. Jalan, did not apply, as it was rendered in 2020 and had no occasion to consider the office orders of 2024 and 2025.
Outcome
The Court set aside the Revenue Recovery Officer’s orders and remitted the matters to him. The parties are to appear before the officer on 18 November 2026. The officer will hear them and submit a report or proposal to the Secretary, RERA, who will give the final verdict and may seek clarification from any party if required. The parties are free to file written submissions before the Secretary. No order was made as to costs.
Case Title: Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others
Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. 5621 of 2026 (and connected petitions)
Bench: Justice Jaspreet Singh
Date: October 30, 2026
