Bombay High Court
BHUSHAN VISHNU BORDEKAR AND 5 ORS.versusSUNSTAR HOMES, REP THR. ITS PARTNER ANUP VISHRAM PRABHU WALAVALKAR AND 5 ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The review application is dismissed as the order under review correctly applies only to parties to the pending RERA appeals and does not affect the present applicants.
Summary
The applicants sought a review of the High Court's order that had allowed the respondent's writ petition and quashed a caveat and final notices issued by the Mamlatdar demanding possession of flats and payment of amounts. The applicants alleged that the court's decision was based on a misrepresentation, claiming that all appeals filed by the respondent before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal had been dismissed, whereas the court had been led to believe that stay orders were still in force. The respondent contended that the writ petition specifically concerned appeals (G‑6/2023 and G‑8/2023) that remained pending and that the stay orders applied only to those parties. The court examined paragraph 13 of the order under review and held that it must be read in conjunction with the observation that the stay orders pertained only to the pending appeals, not to the present applicants. Consequently, the court found no ground to recall the order and dismissed the review application, noting that the order binds only the parties to the pending RERA appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court's order quashing the Mamlatdar's caveat and final notices should be recalled on the ground of alleged misrepresentation about the status of stay orders.
- Whether the stay orders of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal apply to the applicants who are not parties to the pending appeals G‑6/2023 and G‑8/2023.
- Whether the Mamlatdar was required to consider the appellate stay before issuing the final notice dated 11.06.2024.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
- RERA
- stay order
- review petition
- writ petition
- Mamlatdar
- possession
- appeal
- quash
Judgment
Andreza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL APPLICATION REVIEW NO. 8 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2326 OF 2024 (F)
Bhushan Vishnu Bordekar & 5 Ors. … Applicants
Versus
1. Sunstar Homes, Rep. Thr. Its Partner Anup ...Respondents
Vishram Prabhu Walavalkar & 5 Ors.
Mr. C. Padgaonkar, Advocate with Mr. Sholk Rai and Ms. Prapti
Gaunekar, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE : 1st October 2026
ORDER
1. The Applicant seeks recall/review of Order dated 04.10.2024
passed in Writ Petition No. 2326 of 2024(F), thereby allowing Writ
Petition filed by Respondent No.1.
2. Mr. Padgaonkar, learned Advocate appearing for Applicant,
submits that Applicant had filed complaints with Goa Real Estate
Regulatory Authority against Respondent No. 1 under Section 31 of
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The complaints
were allowed upon adjudication and Respondent No. 1 was directed to
hand over possession of properties and pay the compensation.
Respondent no. 1 filed Appeal before Maharashtra Real Estate
Page 1 of 4
1st October 2026
Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, in which the Respondent was directed
to deposit entire amount payable as per RERA orders at 30% penalty.
However, Respondent no. 1 failed to comply with aforesaid directions.
Eventually, appeals were dismissed. On 16.05.2024, Mamlatdar of
Bardez Taluka, issued Form-I notices to Respondent no.1, calling upon
him to pay outstanding amounts, failing which, further action for
recovery would be taken. On 11.06.2024, Mamlatdar issued final
notices directing Respondent to hand over vacant possession of Flat
Nos. B-3 and E-3 within a period of 48 hours, failing which, the flats
would be taken into possession for auction. Respondent No. 1 filed
reply before Mamlatdar stating that RERA orders stood stayed by
Appellate Tribunal. He also filed Land Revenue Appeal No. 25/2024
before Administrative Tribunal at Goa, challenging the Caveat dated
15.01.2024 and final notice dated 11.06.2024. The said appeal came to
be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. The Respondent no.1 then approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 2326 of 2024(F), raising challenge to Caveat notice and
final notice issued by Mamlatdar. This Court allowed the Writ Petition.
4. It is contention of Petitioner that aforesaid Order passed by this
Court is obtained by suppressing the material fact that Appeals filed by
Respondent No.1 before Real Estate Appellate Tribunal against
Page 2 of 4
1st October 2026
Applicants bearing Nos. G-4/2023, G-5/2023, G-7/2023 and G-9/2023
were dismissed on 11.03.2024. However, this court was given
impression that Appellate Tribunal stayed orders passed by RERA
authorities even in Appeals filed against applicants and eventually the
caveat and notices of Mamlatdar have been quashed.
5. Per contra, Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondents, would submit that allegations of misrepresentation are
absolutely baseless. Writ Petition was filed with specific statement that
Appeals bearing no. G-6/2023 and G-8/2023 are pending before
Appellate Tribunal and Orders passed by RERA are stayed therein.
Eventually, Order passed by this Court relates to parties to Appeals
bearing no. G-6/2023 and G-8/2023.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and after going through the
records tendered for consideration, it can be observed that Order under
review records in paragraph 13, as under :
“13. The fact remains that as the Appellate Tribunal has
granted stay on 29.11.2023, and the Petitioner is allowed to
deposit the amount as directed by the Appellate Authority, the
Mamlatdar was required to consider such aspect before issuing
final notice dated 11.06.2024. The Mamlatdar cannot ignore the
orders passed by the Appellate Authority and more particularly,
orders passed by the Real Estate Appellate Regulatory
Page 3 of 4
1st October 2026
Authority, which is subject of adjudication before the
Mamlatdar. Accordingly, the Caveat Application dated
15.01.2024, produced at page 34 and the final notice dated
11.06.2024 produced at 245 of this petition is required to be
quashed and set aside.”
7. Although this paragraph states that final notices dated
15.01.2024 and 11.06.2024 issued by Mamlatdar are quashed and set
aside, this will have to be read in consonance with stay orders passed by
RERA Appellate Tribunal in Appeals Nos. G-6/2023 and G-8/2023.
Therefore, it would be applicable to parties in pending Appeals before
RERA Appellate Tribunal. Insofar as present Applicants who were not
parties in Appeal Nos. G-6/2023 and G-8/2023 before RERA Appellate
Tribunal, would remain unaffected. Paragraph no. 13 of Order under
review cannot be read in isolation and same has to be read in context
with observations made by this Court in paragraph 8 of order under
review.
8. In that view of matter, this Court finds no reason to recall/review
Order. Needless to state here, it shall bind only parties to Appeal
bearing no. G-6/2023 and G-8/2023 before RERA authorities.
9. Review application stands disposed of with aforesaid
observations.
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Page 4 of 4
1st October 2026
Signed by: ANDREZA PEREIRA
Designation: Senior Private Secretary
to the Hon'ble Judge
Date: 05/10/2026 10:10:33
Checking your session…