M/S. SUNSTAR HOMES THR. ITS PARTNER ANUP VISHRAM PRABHU WALAVALKARversusSTATE OF GOA THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS

                                            9-12-WP-182-185-2024-J.DOC
2026:BHC-GOA:1816-DB




                Suchitra



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                                    MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.467/2026
                                                     IN
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.185/2024
                                                    AND
                                    MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.468/2026
                                                     IN
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.183/2024
                                                    AND
                                    MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.469/2026
                                                     IN
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.182/2024
                                                    AND
                                    MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.470/2026
                                                     IN
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.184/2024


                 M/S. SUNSTAR HOMES, a Partnership irm
                 through its Partner, Mr Anup Vishram Prabhu
                 Walavalkar, 51 years of age, residing at H.
                 No.20, Khorlim, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa-                    … APPLICANT/
                 403507.                                                   PETITIONER

                           Versus

                 1. THE STATE OF GOA through the
                 Ministry of Law & Justice, Secretariat,
                 Porvorim – Goa. 403521.

                 2. THE GOA REAL ESTATE
                 REGULATORY AUTHORITY, SPACES,
                 Plot No.40, Block No.101, 1st Floor, EDC,
                 Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.

                 3. MR VIVEK ARJUN NAIK TULASKAR,
                 major in age, residing at House No.26,                  … RESPONDENTS
                 Nagzar, Varkhand, Pernem, Goa – 403512.


                 Mr Harshad Bhadbhade and Ms Tabitha Liza Tayag Souto,
                 Advocates for the Applicant/Petitioner.

                                                     Page 1 of 5
                                                8th September 2026
                       9-12-WP-182-185-2024-J.DOC




 Mr N. Vernekar (WP No.185/2024), Mr S. Priolkar (WP
 No.183/2024), Mr T. Gawas (WP No.182/2024) and Mr G. Shetye
 ((WP No.184/2024), Additional Government Advocates for
 Respondent No.1.

 Mr D. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
 No.2.

                CORAM:              VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                    AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

                DATED:              08th SEPTEMBER 2026

 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Valmiki Menezes, J.)


1.    he main challenge in these Petitions is to the vires of Rule
4 of the Goa Real Estate (Regulation And Development)
(Recovery Of Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine Payable
Forms Of Complaints And Appeal Etc.) Rules, 2017 (‘the Rules’
for short). he main contentions of the Petitioner is that Section
40 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(‘the Act’ for short) provides for recovery of interest or penalty or
compensation and enforcement of order, etc in two manners; sub-
section 1 of Section 40 provides for execution and enforcement of
orders passed by the regulatory authority or the appellate
authority which are in the form of directions to pay interest or
penalty or compensation. Sub-section 2 of Section 40 provides
for a manner of execution of orders of adjudicating oicers or
regulatory authority or appellate authority, where such orders
direct the person to do any act, or to refrain from doing any act,
and enforce such directions.




                                Page 2 of 5
                           8th September 2026
                      9-12-WP-182-185-2024-J.DOC




2.    Sub-section 1 of Section 40 provides for execution of orders
granting compensation, penalty or interest by recovery
proceedings but arrears of Land Revenue. Sub-section 2 provides
for execution of directions and orders in the manner prescribed
by the Rules.

3.    It is contended that Rule 4 of said Goa Rules prescribes
only one method of execution of both, orders passed under sub-
section 1 of Section 40 (which prescribes recovery as arrears of
land revenue), as also,     sub-section 2 of Section 40 which
prescribes enforcement of directions of the authorities, both as if
they were decrees of a civil court; the Rule provides for only one
method of executing both types of orders by iling execution
proceedings in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure before a
Civil Court.

4.    hese contention would have to be examined in the
backdrop of the speciic facts of the Petitioner’s case.        he
Petitioner sufered an order of the RERA which was composite in
nature, in which the Petitioner was directed to hand over
possession of certain premises, to pay penalty and to pay interest
to the complainants. his order came to be challenged before the
RERA Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal, and the
original order of the RERA stood conirmed. he complainants
proceeded in an execution proceedings before the Civil Court, in
terms of order 21 of the CPC and under Rule 4 of the Goa Rules
seeking enforcement of that part of the decree of the RERA
which directed the possession of the apartment to be transferred
by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.3 in WP No.183, 184
                               Page 3 of 5
                          8th September 2026
                      9-12-WP-182-185-2024-J.DOC




and 185 of 2024 and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in WP
No.182/2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainants’) in these
four Petitions. he Civil Court has as of today, completed the
execution of the possession order and handed over the possession
to the aforementioned complainants and nothing further survives
to be executed of the RERA order.

5.    Insofar as the part of the RERA order directing payment of
penalty and interest, the complainants/Respondents in these
Petitions iled proceedings before the Mamlatdar under the Goa
Land Revenue Code, 1971 in which, the Revenue Authorities
have quantiied the interest and penalty amount and proceedings
under the Code are pending.

6.    From these facts, what we understand clearly is that the
original decree/order of RERA has been fully executed. Insofar as
sub-section 2 of Section 40 is concerned, the possession of the
premises has been handed over. However, insofar as enforcement
of the order under sub-section 1 of Section 40 is concerned, the
proceedings are still pending before the Revenue Authorities. As
we see, the Respondents/complainants have adopted the correct
course by having that part of the decree which fell under sub-
section 2 of Section 40 to be executed by the Civil Court in terms
of the Code of Civil Procedure whilst the part of the decree that
was fully executed under sub-section 1 of Section 40 was sought
to be executed correctly before the Revenue Authorities.

7.    hough the vires of the provisions of Rule 4 has been
challenged before us, in the aforementioned scenario, where the

                               Page 4 of 5
                          8th September 2026
                                                         9-12-WP-182-185-2024-J.DOC




                                  decree has partly been executed, and the proceedings pending
                                  under the Land Revenue Code are well within the powers of the
                                  Revenue Authorities under sub-section 1 of Section 40 of RERA,
                                  we do not propose to enter into the questions raised in challenge
                                  to the vires of Rule 4 of the Goa Rules. his would be only an
                                  academic matter in the facts of these Petitions, and we leave this
                                  challenge to be addressed in an appropriate Petition.

                                  8.    Considering the aforesaid reasons assigned by us for
                                  declining to entertain these Petitions insofar as the challenge to
                                  the provisions of Rule 4 of the Goa Rules is concerned, we
                                  dismiss these Petitions. No cost.

                                  9.    All the Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. he
                                  Rule is discharged in all these Petitions.


                                   AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                   VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN                                         Page 5 of 5
SINGBAL                                                       8th September 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 09/09/2026 11:10:52