 Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 15: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has set aside the “status quo” restraint imposed on Royal Omkar Nests Pvt. Ltd. in a RERA-linked dispute, holding that once the J&K Special Tribunal’s single-bench Chairperson found the appeal not maintainable for want of proper bench composition, he could not have continued any restraint order. The order was passed by Justice Rahul Bharti in petition, filed by Royal Omkar Nests Private Limited & another against Sandeep Kumar & others. The petitioners are the promoter of the real estate project “Royal Nest Sapphire” located at Dilli Kunjwani Bye Pass, Jammu.
As recorded in the judgment, 14 flat-holders had filed a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 before JKRERA (File No. JKRERA/2025/01, dated 31.01.2025).
The complaint was disposed of by JKRERA on 21.07.2025, directing that defects be brought in writing and be rectified within 30 days, with liberty to seek relief/compensation if the promoter failed to do so.
Aggrieved, the allottees preferred an appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, which the UT Government had designated as the appellate forum under S.O. 637 dated 28.12.2023 till a regular RERA appellate tribunal is constituted.
The appeal (No. STJ/214/2025) was instituted on 18.09.2025.
On 22.09.2025, the Tribunal’s single-member bench (Chairperson) ordered parties to maintain status quo regarding the project, including common spaces, and restrained the promoter from converting common areas into commercial space or operating/alienating such space.
The promoter objected that under Section 43(3) of the RERA Act, an appellate tribunal bench must comprise at least one judicial member and one administrative/technical member, and hence a single-bench hearing was incompetent.
In the impugned order dated 04.12.2025, the Chairperson accepted the objection and granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before a duly constituted bench, yet directed that status quo would continue on the common areas with a warning of “adverse consequences” for any violation.
Hearing the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court held that once the Chairperson concluded the appeal was not maintainable, there was “no occasion” to issue any further observation or direction, and the continuation of “status quo” was nugatory. The court accordingly quashed the status quo direction relating to the common areas, while leaving the rest of the order intact, and disposed of the petition.
Petitioners were represented by Mr Amit Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Sumit Moza, Advocate, while respondents were represented by Mr Navyug Sethi, Advocate. (JNF) |