Odisha RERA Faces Criticism from Developers Over Arbitrary Decisions in Real Estate Disputes
The Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) has come under fire from several local developers who allege that the authority has been issuing “arbitrary” orders in real estate disputes. This criticism follows a recent case in which ORERA issued a suo motu order regarding a property project in Phulnakhara, stipulating that the developer could not proceed with further bookings until completed units were handed over to allottees.
The order, which came as a result of a case filed against the developer, prohibits further collection of payments from buyers, registering an association of allottees, obtaining occupancy certificates for completed units, and handing over common areas to the association. The developer, however, disputed the order, claiming that it was unjust, and challenged the decision in the Orissa High Court, where they obtained a status quo on the matter. Ashish Garg, managing director of the real estate firm involved in the case, expressed his dissatisfaction with the ORERA process, highlighting that the authority did not convene a proper bench to hear the matter. “ORERA is harassing the developers. They do not have a proper bench to hear any case,” Garg said, noting that the authority typically consists of a three-member bench, but only two members were present in his case. He described the order as “completely arbitrary,” and this prompted his firm to seek a stay on the order from the High Court.
This isn’t the first time that developers have voiced concerns over ORERA’s actions. In a similar case, a developer in Puri challenged ORERA’s demolition order regarding a residential project. The authority had found that the developer had extended the project without obtaining due plan approval from the Puri Konark Development Authority (PKDA). However, the developer alleged that the order lacked signatures from all the members of the bench and raised concerns about ORERA’s stance on hearing grievances from activists rather than aggrieved buyers themselves. While developers have voiced their concerns, ORERA maintains that its decisions are made to protect the interests of homebuyers. A senior ORERA official defended the authority’s actions, emphasising that the orders are intended to prevent fraudulent activities in the real estate sector. “We are not biased at all. The orders are meant to safeguard homebuyers from unscrupulous practices,” the official stated. The tension between ORERA and developers highlights the growing complexities in the real estate sector in Odisha, as the regulatory body seeks to enforce compliance and address issues that affect consumers. Developers, on the other hand, argue that such arbitrary actions can disrupt business operations and cause unnecessary delays.
The legal battle between developers and ORERA is ongoing, with the real estate sector closely watching the outcomes of these disputes. Both sides seem to have a clear objective: developers want to operate without undue interference, while ORERA is determined to ensure that property transactions in the state are transparent and protect buyers’ interests. This clash between developers and the regulatory authority raises important questions about the balance of power in the Odisha real estate market. It underscores the need for clear processes and fair hearings to ensure that all parties involved, be they developers or buyers, can trust in the system that governs property transactions. For now, the focus remains on how the courts will resolve these disputes and whether ORERA’s approach to safeguarding consumers will stand up to the scrutiny of the judiciary and the real estate community. Developers are hoping for a more structured and transparent process, while ORERA is firm on its commitment to preventing fraudulent activities in the housing sector.
