RERA vs HIRA
The West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Bill 2017 was passed by the state assembly, on August 16, 2017, although it missed the July 31 deadline by the centre, for adoption of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) 2016, in all states.The bill aims to offer consumers protection from building and housing promoters. Once notified by the West Bengal government, all housing projects above 500 sq metres or eight apartments, need to be registered with the state regulator, the Housing Industry Regulatory Authority (HIRA). The bill proposes to bring the HIRA in place, over the next 60 days. The real estate industry body CREDAI Bengal said as reported that The Real Estate Act came into force on May 1, 2017 and the state government is to notify the rules.
Related Acts:
- West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993.[ To be replaced by West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017]
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Competition Act, 2002
- The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”)
STATE LAW VS CENTRAL LAW
IF a central Act is considered to be a complete code with respect to regulation and development of real estate in India, West Bengal Act would be repugnant due to mere existence of RERA.
- Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. State of Bihar, 1983 (4) SCC 45
- Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority, C.A. No. 711 of 2011, decided on January 18, 2011 (Supreme Court)
- M/s Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank[SC-decided on August 31, 2017]
The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was held to be a complete code in the case of Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. Haryana Concast Limited, C.A. No. 3646 of 2011, decided on December 29, 2015 (Supreme Court);
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was held to be a complete code in the case of ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries, AIR 2011 SC 1521;
The Foreigners Act, 1946 was held to be exhaustive in Martinez Montsant Joan v. Union of India, 2009 (5) ALT 120.
M/s Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank, (C.A. No. 8337 of 2009, decided on August 31, 2017) (Supreme Court);
Deep Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 648; Ch. Tika Ramji v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1956) SCR 393.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, C.A. No. 5387 of 2014, decided on May 7, 2014 (Supreme Court).
State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch & Co., (1964) 4 SCR 461.
