The Allahabad High Court, on Monday, came down heavily on the state housing agency, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, for delaying compliance with an order of the UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) and issuing a cheque for an amount lower than the one mentioned in a recovery certificate.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla in Lucknow observed that the authorities appeared to be taking proceedings before UP RERA and the High Court too lightly.
The bench directed the Housing Commissioner of the Parishad to appear before it through video-conferencing at 10.15 am on Tuesday to explain why a cheque for a lesser amount was issued.
The case relates to a complaint filed by Ashok Kumar Singh before UP RERA, which had ruled in his favour on July 29, 2025.
During enforcement proceedings, a recovery certificate for Rs 26,58,806.01 was issued by UPRERA on May 27, 2026. However, the recovery proceedings were not given effect by the revenue authorities, prompting Singh to approach the High Court.
On August 7, the High Court had directed the Housing Board to deposit the amount payable under the RERA order within 10 days, warning that the Housing Commissioner would have to appear if the order was not complied with.
On Monday, the Parishad filed a compliance affidavit stating that a cheque for Rs 23,71,126, drawn in favour of the Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench, had been prepared and was being handed over to the petitioner’s counsel.
The court said the cheque amount could be released to the petitioner, as per the court rules, on submission of an application and without waiting for any further order.
However, the bench questioned why the cheque was for Rs 23.71 lakh when the recovery certificate issued by the statutory authority specified Rs 26.58 lakh.
Replying to this, the Parishad’s counsel submitted that the department had made its own calculation.
To this, the court questioned how the Parishad could make a calculation contrary to the amount specified in the recovery certificate issued by a statutory authority.
No satisfactory explanation was given, and the court also noted that no calculation was annexed with the compliance affidavit.