Royal Omkar Nests Pvt Ltd Th Director Vimal Kumar and Another v. Sandeep Kumar and Others

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶01The petitioner No. 1 - Royal Omkar Nests Private Ltd., is a promoter of real estate project, namely, "Royal Nest Sapphire" located at Dilli Kunjwani Bye Pass, Jammu and is coming forward with institution of present petition through the petitioner No. 2 – Vimal Kumar duly authorised person.

¶02Fourteen (14) respondents herein are said to be the holders of the flats in the aforesaid "Royal Nest Sapphire Apartment", who came to lodge a complaint under section 31 Serial No. 191 Supplementary List-III

of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 on file No. JKRERA/2025/01 dated 31.01.2025 before the Jammu & Kashmir Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short, "JKRERA").

¶03In their said complaint, the respondents came to enlist (i) to (xiii) heads of purported grievances related to the "Royal Nest Sapphire Apartment".

¶04The petitioner No. 2 was put to notice in the said complaint by the JKRERA and which came to be contested by the petitioners.

¶05The respondents' complaint came to be disposed of in terms of an order dated 21.07.2025 by JKRERA in the following manner and effect:- "14. Finally, in the course of hearing, as consented the complainants shall brought the defects to the notice of the respondent in writing who in turn conceded that it shall be rectified. So, in the facts of this case and the provisions of law, it is ordered that any of the aggrieved allottee of this project may brought the defects or any other obligation to the notice of respondent and it shall be his duty to rectify it within 30 days. In the event, the respondent fails to rectify the same, the allottee concerned, if so advised, shall be at liberty to approach the Authority or the Adjudicating officer as the case may be for claiming compensation. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the complaint is disposed of accordingly."

¶06The respondents/complainants feeling aggrieved of the outcome of their said complaint in terms of said order dated 21.07.2025 of JKRERA preferred an appeal before the

appellate tribunal as envisaged under section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

¶07In terms of S.O. 637 dated 28.12.2023, the Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir came to designate Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal as appellate tribunal for the purposes of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 till a regular appellate tribunal is constituted in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir.

¶08The appeal thus came to be submitted before the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal being an appellate tribunal functioning under Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal Act, 1988 in terms whereof the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal has been constituted for presentation of appeals, revisions and review petitions arising under any law made by the legislative assembly of the Union Territory.

¶09The institution of the appeal on file No. STJ/214/2025 came to take place on 18.09.2025 with the repeat of charges as set out in the complaint by the respondents/complainants bearing the status as appellants before the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal.

¶10In response to the appeal so filed, the Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal came to take

cognizance of the appeal as being single Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal.

¶11In terms of an interim order dated 22.09.2025, the single Bench of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal comprised of Chairperson came to direct parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the entire project including the common space and further restraining the petitioner herein from converting the common area into commercial space and from operating or alienating any such space till filing of objections by the respondents on next date of hearing whichever being earlier.

¶12The petitioner No. 2 appeared in response to the notice so issued in the appeal and submitted written objections to the entertainability and maintainability of the appeal by and before the single Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal as against the requirement of section 43(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 which provides a Bench of an appellate tribunal to consist of at least one judicial member and one administrative or technical member.

¶13The single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, by virtue of impugned order dated

04.12.2025 while concurring with the objection of the petitioner No. 2 with respect to the competence of the Bench to

hear the appeal, granted liberty to the respondents /complainants/appellants to file a fresh appeal which then to be assigned to a Bench constituted as in terms of requirement and mandate of section 43(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 but till the filing of the said appeal directed status quo to continue to be maintained by the petitioners with respect to common areas of the Project with a rider that violation of the order on the part of the petitioner of status quo to attract adverse consequences.

¶14It is this manner of adjudication which has left the petitioners seriously aggrieved that once the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal was lacking inherent jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and as acceded to in the impugned order dated 04.12.2025, there was then no scope whatsoever left for the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal to keep the status quo direction in place till filing of fresh appeal by the respondents before a duly constituted appellate Bench.

¶15The petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India simultaneously invoking supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the aforesaid order to the extent it places the status quo direction.

¶16Mr. Amit Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate arguing for the petitioners submits that very plain principle of law drawn from latin maxim "coram non judice" fully applies to the facts of the case to render the parting direction of the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal illegal per se after having first come to hold that the appellate tribunal is not duly constituted for which the respondents/complainants, as appellants, were to be given liberty to file a fresh appeal which then to be assigned to a Bench constituted in accordance with section 43(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

¶17On the other hand, Mr. Navyug Sethi, learned counsel for the respondents argues to defend the said parting direction of the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal stating that it is an innocuous one and shall prejudice petitioners in no manner.

¶18After having heard both sides, this Court is of the view that once the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal came up with a confirmed realization that the very entertainability and maintainability of the respondents' appeal by and before the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal as an Appellate Tribunal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was misconceived in the sense being

not qualified to be an appellate tribunal under section 43(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, there was no occasion left for the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal to come up with any further observation, be it innocuous one or prejudicial one, in favour of either of the two parties and, thus, the impugned observation/direction of the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal is nothing but nugatory in the eyes of law which warrants to be quashed and to that extent this Court set-asides the direction of the status quo placed upon the petitioners with respect to the common areas of the project as obtaining in order dated 04.12.2025 rest of which is held to be non-questionable as the appeal of the respondents has been held to be not maintainable before the single Bench of Chairperson of Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal.

¶19In view of the aforesaid, this petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected applications.

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU

29.12.2025

Bunty

Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes

Jammu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM No. 8574/2025 CM No. 8575/2025 Date of pronouncement : 29.12.2025 Uploaded on : 07.01.2026 Royal Omkar Nests Private Limited & Anr. ….Petitioners Through:- Mr. Amit Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate. V/s Sandeep Kumar & Ors. …..Respondents Through:- Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate. \ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE