Reading time : 12 minutes


Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) challenged the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 in a petition under Article 32[1] of the Indian constitution. The challenge arose as both WB-HIRA[2] and Parliamentary enactment – the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016[3] are relatable to the legislative subjects contained in Entries 6 and 7 of the Concurrent List (interchangeably referred to as ‘List III’) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and after Parliament has passed legislation in a field covered by the Concurrent List, it is constitutionally forbidden for the State Legislature to pass legislation on the same subject matter through parallel legislation. WB-HIRA has not been earmarked and has not gained Presidential approval assent in accordance with Article 254(2)[4]; it contains certain provisions which are directly in conflict with the central enactment’s related clauses and is a virtual re-enactment of the Central enactment.

State legislatures had implemented many laws to control the connection between promoters and purchasers of real estate before Parliament enacted the RERA in 2016. The West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993[5] was one of them. The State of West Bengal’s legislation was reserved and got Presidential approval, after which it was published in the Official Gazette on March 9, 1994. The bill to enact the RERA was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on August 14, 2013. The Rajya Sabha approved the bill on March 10, 2016, while the Lok Sabha approved it on March 15, 2016. On March 25, 2016, the President signed the bill, which was then released in the Official Gazette the next day. RERA was then partially implemented on May 1, 2016, with the remaining clauses came into effect on April 19, 2017.

Several other states have passed legislation on the subject, including the Maharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Act, 2012[6], which received Assent of the president on February 2, 2014; and the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2015, which was passed by the State Legislative Assembly on February 3, 2016. RERA specifically revoked the Maharashtra Act[7] , while the State Legislative Assembly repealed the Kerala Act through the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Repeal Act, 2017.[8]

On August 18, 2016, the state of West Bengal drafted RERA guidelines, but no further movement was made since then. The motion to pass the WB-HIRA Bill was approved by the State Legislative Assembly on August 16, 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Governor of West Bengal gave his consent to the state enactment. The WB-HIRA revoked the WB 1993 Act.[9] The other provisions of the WB-HIRA were implemented by a notification[10] dated March 29, 2018, issued by the Governor of the State of West Bengal in execution of the competence provided by WB-HIRA section 1 sub-section (3). Following that, on June 8, 2018, the State of West Bengal enacted WB-HIRA legislation.


To develop the real estate industry, the RERA was developed. The real estate industry is constantly expanding and contributing significantly to the growth of Indian economy. It seeks to address the country’s housing and infrastructure needs by acting as a catalyst. While this industry has developed rapidly in recent years, it has remained mostly unregulated, lacking competence and standards, as well as effective consumer protection, therefore, there must be legislation to regulate it, and RERA has been implemented to do so. RERA strives to improve public welfare, transparency, effective consumer protection, uniformity and standardization of business practices and transactions in the real estate sector.

The RERA (Real Estate Regulations and Development) Act[11] came into force on May 1, 2016 notified by the Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation.

Prior to the formation of the RERA Act, Indian real estate consumers had few legal options and were protected by several provisions such as the Indian Contract Act,1872[12] and the Consumer Protection Act,1986.[13] In order to resolve their complaints and disputes, Indian consumers had to turn to a variety of authorities, including Consumer Courts and Civil Courts. Also, before the advent of the said act, there was no unified regulating authority for the real estate sector, so purchasers had to deal with issues like delayed project delivery, delays in the developer handing over possession, high-interest rates levied on late payments, numerous bookings for the same property, project failures, and so on. Developers, on the other hand, had to deal with difficulties including building permission delays, late homeowner payments, and opaque operations.


RERA primarily aims to regulate and promote the real estate sector by ensuring effective and efficient transparency in real estate project transactions, protecting consumer interests, and attempting to create a customer-friendly environment, as well as establishing a system for adjudicating the timely resolution of conflicts by differentiating those brought within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. Despite the fact that the legislative is still in its early stages, it is encouraging to notice a decrease in several common complaints, such as delivery delays, fraudulent advertising, and incorrect payments for additional regions. RERA has a number of key goals, including the following:

● A centralised Real Estate regulatory authority, a specialised adjudicatory authority, and a Central Advisory Council are all established. The states are also required to develop rules for regulating the real estate industry in accordance with the Act.

● By adding the liabilities of promoters, builders, developers, real estate brokers, and others, it allows risk-bearing to be transferred from customers to developers.

● The Act establishes a procedure for real-estate transactions that requires the creation of a separate bank account for each project, with only 30% of the total amount being appropriated. The remaining 70% will be used exclusively for the same purpose.

● No real estate project may be sold or advertised without first registering with the appropriate government. Mandatory disclosure of all project facts, including all accounts, audits, and reports, as well as the promoters, developers, agents, engineers, architects, and approval authorities, and publication of all project details on a single website for real estate projects.

● It specifies the rights, obligations, and functions of all project participants.

● Significantly reduced malpractice penalty provisions and penalties for promoters, real estate agents, and other allowed persons and corporations.

● The Act repeals all state laws that are incompatible with the Central Act and gives Member Stores the authority to develop their own real estate legislation in conformity with the Central Act.

● A timely grievance redressal process was designed under RERA. The commission’s regulator/adjudication officer has been given authority to investigate consumer or suo moto complaints of Act violations. The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) will be established to expedite the resolution of appeals. Instead of using consumer forums/courts, where they are combined in with other consumer complaints, a 60-day term is defined for redressals, creating a concentrated platform for real estate problem redress.

Every state government is obligated by the RERA law to form a regulatory authority and execute its own set of rules and regulations that fall within the statute’s scope. As a result, in compliance with RERA’s mandate, rules and regulations have been drafted, and real estate regulatory authorities (each Authority and collectively Authorities) have been established by governments of various states.[14]


For the last decade or so, the real estate market has been exploding, but it has been largely uncontrolled. There was no such measure in place to protect consumers’ interests. The passage of HIRA would result in the industry’s ideal growth, as well as professionalism, standardisation, and uniformity. As a result, HIRA has evolved as a proactive measure to protect the interests of all industry stakeholders.[15]

The Act aims to benefit West Bengal’s real estate sector in the following ways:

● To provide clear principles for regulating and promoting the housing or real estate sector in West Bengal.

● To guarantee that a plot, apartment, building, or real estate project is sold in a timely and transparent manner.

● To safeguard the interests of real estate buyers and sellers.

● To create a method that can promptly resolve various real estate issues.

● To establish correct rules and regulations to assure compliance, to conduct investigations, and to enforce fines for any type of real estate infringement.

● To develop a website with relevant information on real estate projects, such as records of registered real estate projects and a list of defaulters.[16]


When analysing and comparing RERA and HIRA, it becomes clear that both legislations attempt to determine a jurisdiction for the regulation and advancement of the real estate/housing sector, as well as to confirm the efficient and transparent sale of a plot, apartment, or building, as the case may be, or the sale of a real estate project, and to protect the interests of consumers in the real estate sector. However, it would be necessary to visit the inconsistencies and deviations made in WB-HIRA from the provisions of the RERA.[17]

Furthermore, we note the following differences between the provisions of RERA and HIRA:

1Definition of ‘car parking area’The term ‘car parking area’ has yet to be defined.The term “car parking area” has been defined as ‘such area as may be prescribed’.[18]
2Definition of ‘garage’‘Garage’ has been defined to mean ‘a place within a project having a roof and walls on three sides for parking any vehicle, but does not include an unenclosed or uncovered parking space such as open parking areas’.[19]The term “garage” has been defined as “a garage and parking space sanctioned by the Competent Authority.”[20] As a result, any sort of parking space authorized by the competent authorities, including an open parking area, may be included in the definition of “garage.”
3Planning areaRERA only applies to real estate projects that are located inside a planning area that has been designated as such by the appropriate government or a competent body.A separate concept of a planning area does not exist. HIRA is applicable to all projects in West Bengal.
4Force Majeure eventsLimited to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake, or any other natural calamity that disrupts the normal development of the real estate project.[21]A case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake, or any other natural calamity affecting the regular development of the real estate project, or any other circumstances as may be prescribed, is considered a case of force majeure.[22]
5Courts which may try offencesAny offence punished under RERA may not be tried in a court lower than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.[23]There is no such provision.
6Compounding of offencesNotwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if a person is sentenced to prison, the punishment may be compounded on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, and on payment of such sums as may be prescribed, but not more than the maximum amount of the fine that may be imposed for the compounded offence.[24]There is no provision for offences to be compounded.
7Factors for adjudging quantum of compensation or interestThe adjudicating person assigned by the regulatory body must take into account the factors listed in RERA while determining the amount of compensation or interest payable by a promoter, allottee, or real estate agency, as the case may be.[25]The regulatory body must take into account the factors listed in HIRA when determining the amount of remuneration or interest payable by a promoter, allottee, or real estate agent, as the case may be.[26]
8Construction materials to be usedThe authority has the ability to offer recommendations to the appropriate government about the use of appropriate construction materials.The authority has the ability to offer recommendations to the state government regarding the usage of state construction materials.
9Power of the regulatory authorityIn some situations, the authority has the jurisdiction to make a suo moto referral to the Competition Commission of India.[27]There is no such power to make a suo moto referral to the Indian Competition Commission.
10Power of government to supersede authorityFor the reasons indicated in RERA, the appropriate government may replace the regulatory authority and designate person(s) to exercise authorities and execute tasks under RERA as directed by the President or Governor, as the case may be.For the circumstances specified in HIRA, the state government may supersede the regulatory body.



WB-HIRA regulates the contractual behaviour of promoters and buyers in real-estate projects in a similar way. The state law is a carbon copy of the federal law (with the exception of a few provisions that are in conflict with RERA) and covers the same territory as the parliamentary enactment. The West Bengal Regulation is in conflict with the Central Act, and the State Law does not fall under the headings of ‘land’ (Entry 18, List II) or ‘industry’ (Entry 24, List II). The meaning of the term “industry” was examined using precedents such as ITC Ltd vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Ors[28]; Tika Ram Ji vs. State of UP[29]; and Calcutta Gas Co Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal [30]. The act was meant to regulate the housing sector under Entry 24, List II, but it is now governed by Entries 6 and 7 of List III. That the constitutionality of new laws would be judged solely on the basis of Articles 254 and 256[31] of the Constitution.

The Union of India argued that:

  1. the State Act is in direct conflict with the Central Act
  2. the State Act is enacted on an occupied field
  3. the State Government’s creation of a similar regime in the real estate sector cannot exist simultaneously with RERA’s provisions
  4. the State Act is entirely repugnant.

The State of West Bengal contented that:

  1. While referring to RERA Sections 88 and 89[32], it was claimed that RERA is non-exhaustive in nature.
  2. The West Bengal Act does not contravene RERA.
  3. The fact that the subject-matter is the same does not imply inconsistency or repugnancy, especially given RERA’s non-exhaustive nature and the fact that it is a supplement to the Central Law.
  4. There are just a few minor contradictions between the two pieces of law, and none of them are in direct opposition with RERA’s mandates.[33]


Hon’ble Supreme Court first said that Entry 24 of List II of the WB-HIRA was meant to cover the sphere of “housing industry.” In light of the lack of this argument in the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, the Court looked into the definition and scope of the term “industry” in the three lists. In the case of Tika Ramji[34], it was contended that the term “industries” should be interpreted to include not only the manufacturing process but also the activities that precede it. The legitimacy of the UP Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953[35], was challenged in this case. The Court had rejected the claim that the term “industry” had a broad enough definition to include the ability to regulate in regard to raw materials that are deemed to be a fundamental part of the industrial process or the distribution of the industry’s products. Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Vs. State of West Bengal[36] and ITC Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee[37] both supported this position. Because both RERA and WB-HIRA are covered by Entries 6 and 7 of Schedule III, “in a matter involving the Constitutional validity of the Act, the State of West Bengal has not been precluded by this Court from urging the full line of its defense.”[38]


Article 246[39] explicitly defines the legislative powers of both the Parliament and the State, allowing them to apply to the whole of India or any part of it, and to the whole or any part of a State, respectively. With regard to the scope of Article 246[40], the Court emphasised that Parliament has exclusive legislative competence over matters included in List I, which is reiterated by the non-obstante clause found in the relevant statute. Both Parliament and the State have the right to legislate on items listed in List III, but only the State Legislature has the sole power to legislate on subjects detailed in List II, subject to the workings of clauses (1) and (2) of the Article.

Article 248[41] gives Parliament the right to enact legislation on any subject not covered by the Concurrent and State List. Article 254[42] incorporates the Doctrine of Repugnancy, which provides for contradictions between laws established by the Parliament and the State Legislature. When examining the significant characteristics of Article 254[43], the following were considered: –

● Article 254(1)[44] enshrines the idea of repugnancy on issues included in the Concurrent List, over which both the State Legislatures and Parliament have legislative authority;

● A State law that is repugnant to Parliamentary Legislation on a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List must yield to a Parliamentary law, whether enacted before or after the State law;

● In the event of a repugnancy, the Parliamentary legislation shall prevail, and the State law shall be void “to the extent of the repugnancy;”

● If the State legislation obtains the President’s assent, the result of a conflict between the State legislation and a law adopted by Parliament within the scope of List III can be avoided.

● As indicated in the provision to clause (2), the grant of Presidential assent under clause (2) of Article 254[45] does not preclude Parliament from adopting a legislation on the subject matter.”

The Supreme Court also referred to its decision in Zaverbhal Amaldas Vs. State of Bombay[46], wherein it was held that:

Article 254(2)[47] will not apply if the later legislation does not deal with the things that were the subject of the previous legislation, but with other and separate matters of a related and associated nature. The concept enshrined in Section 107(2) and Article 254(2)[48] is that where the Centre and the Province both have the authority to make laws addressing the same subject, the Centre’s law shall take precedence over the State’s.

“The principle that the rule of implied repeal is based on, namely, that if the subject-matter of the later legislation is identical to that of the earlier legislation, so that they cannot both stand together, the earlier is repealed by the later enactment, will be equally applicable to a question under Article 254(2)[49] of whether the further legislation by Parliament is in respect of the same matter as that of the earlier legislation.”[50]

In terms of the concepts of Federalism and Repugnance, the SC noted that the Australian Constitution is similar to the Indian Constitution. The Court examined and debated the development of international jurisprudence on the application of the idea of repugnancy by examining the three tests of repugnancy on contradiction outlined in Nicholas’ text on the Australian Constitution, which state as follows:

● The actual terms of the competing statutes may be inconsistent[51]

● Even though there is no obvious contradiction, a state law may be rendered ineffective because Commonwealth legislation, or a Commonwealth Court judgement, is meant to be a comprehensive code[52]

● When both the State and the Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the same subject-matter, a conflict can arise even if neither party intends it.[53]

In Deep Chand Vs State of UP[54], the Supreme Court reconstructed the concepts established in Tika Ramji[55] and Zaverbhai[56], stating:

“ ..Repugnancy between two statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles:

(1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions

(2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State legislature and

(3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the state legislature occupy the same field….”[57]

The Hon’ble Court referred to a multitude of decisions including State of Orissa Vs. M/s M A Tulloch[58]; H State of Kerala Vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd.[59]. The Court also drew reference to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank[60] which formulated three tests of repugnancy.

According to the Supreme Court, the law recognises three forms of repugnancy:

  1. Where there is an absolute or irreconcilable contradiction or disagreement between a provision in a State Law and a provision in a Parliamentary Law with regard to a matter in the Concurrent List.
  2. Where Parliament has demonstrated its desire to dominate the entire field and there is a disagreement between state and federal legislation.
  3. Where the same subject is regulated by both the Parliament and the State Legislature.

The distinction between the first and second and third tests was highlighted by the Court, which stated that the first test is based on an irreconcilable contradiction between the provisions of the two statutes, whilst the second and third tests are based on a comparison of the content of the two sections. Both the language and the context of the Parliamentary Act must be held in mind when assessing whether a case of repugnancy emerges on the application of the second and third tests. The essence of the subject material being legislated on, the aim of the law, the rights intended to be safeguarded, the legislative history, and the form and scope of the statutory provisions are all considerations that guide judicial review. It was held that “repugnancy, in other words, is not an option of first choice but something that can be drawn where a clear case based on the application of one of the three tests arises for determination,” concluding that “the primary effort in the exercise of judicial review must be to harmonise the conflicting provisions.”[61]


When it came to the application of RERA, the Court pointed out that it didn’t try to replace state laws and instead followed the division of legislative authorities. Other laws may be applied, and the provisions of these laws “shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force,”[62]. Similarly, Section 89[63] states that RERA “shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court was questioned in M D Frozen Food Exports Private Ltd. Vs. Hero Fincorp Ltd.[64] whether arbitration proceedings commenced by the respondent might be continued concurrently with SARFAESI proceedings. The provisions of the SARFAESI, in addition to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, were held to afford a remedy.

More recently, in Pioneer Urband Land and Infrastructure Limited Vs. UOI[65], the Court rejected the argument that RERA was a special legislation that took precedence over the IBC, which is a general enactment, because allottees of real estate projects were deemed to be financial creditors under the amended provisions of the IBC, causing the application of the IBC to real estate developers. The Court stated that the RERA and the IBC must coexist, and that in the event of a conflict, the RERA must give way to the IBC.[66]


In the case of Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH Vs. SAIL[67], the Court considered the meaning of the expression “law for the time being in force” in regard of an arbitration agreement and held that the expression not only makes reference to the law in force at the time the arbitration was entered into, but also to any law that may be in force in the future.

Using the Apex Court’s decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Prem Chand Gupta[68], Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs State of Maharashtra[69], and Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs Rajesh Kumar Basandhi[70], among others, the Court concluded that there are two fundamental features from a comparison of the two impugned statutes:

(1) WB HIRA overlaps with RERA regulations in a major and significant way.

(2) There are no provisions in the WB HIRA that provide additional rights or strengthen existing rights, obligations, or remedies created by the Central Act, hence it does not complement the RERA.

“Repugnancy in the constitutional sense is implicated not because there is a clash between the provisions enacted by the State legislature and those of the law enacted by Parliament, but because once Parliament has enacted a law, it is not open to the State legislature to enact laws on the same subject matter, and, as in this case, by imposing provisions which are bodily libellous,” the Court stated. The resemblance between the requirements of WB-HIRA and the RERA is so great that there is no doubt that the test of repugnancy based on subject matter identity is firmly established.”

On the State of West Bengal’s objections regarding RERA Sections 88 and 89[71], the Court agreed that the Parliament did not intend to dominate the entire field, preventing any exercise of governance under any Central or State enactment. However, using the principles of repugnancy, the Court found that the State, by establishing a parallel regime under State law, has encroached on Parliament’s legislative authority, and so the state legislature’s act is illegal. The  Court went on to say that-

“The statutory overlaps between WB-HIRA and the RERA cannot be overlooked, as noted above. But quite apart from that, there is an additional reason why the test of repugnancy engrafted in clause (1) of Article 254 is attracted. This is because several provisions of the WB-HIRA are directly in conflict and dissonance with the RERA. Where a State enactment in the Concurrent List has enacted or made a statutory provision which is in conflict with those which have been enacted by Parliament, it may in a given case be possible to exercise the provision of the State statute so as to bring it into conformity with the Parliamentary enactment. But the present case, as we shall demonstrate, involves a situation where valuable safeguards which are introduced by Parliament in the public interest and certain remedies which have been created by Parliament are found to be absent in WB- HIRA”.

In response to the State of West Bengal’s claims that it failed to obtain Presidential Assent under Article 254(2)[72], which was required because it was to compete with RERA, the Court extracted relevant paragraphs from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajiv Sarin Vs State of Uttarakhand[73] and held that, while it is clear that Presidential Assent must be obtained.[74]


The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that

(i) the provisions of the WB 1993 Act, which was enacted before the WB HIRA, are repugnant with the corresponding provisions in RERA;

(ii) that the WB-HIRA is repugnant with RERA and is thus unconstitutional, and that, as a result, the provisions of the WB 1993 Act would be impliedly repealed upon the enactment of RERA; and

(iii)That the striking down of WB-HIRA in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142[75] will have no effect on registrations, sanctions, or licences previously issued under the Act prior to the date of this judgement.

RERA has made great progress, with states implementing laws and establishing a Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The level of transparency brought about by RERA has profoundly transformed the way the real estate business operates. A number of parties have already been granted relief under RERA. Given the shaky State-Centre relationships and the media din of Parliamentary dominance, this judgement has clearly stated and assessed the issues at hand, including the scope and reach of Article 254[76] and the idea of Occupied field. The doctrine of repugnancy was used to strike down the West Bengal Act, which determined the legal standards on the matter.[77]

[1] The Constitution of India, art. 32.

[2] The West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act,2017 (West Bengal Act XLI of 2017).

[3] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016).

[4] The Constitution of India, art. 254(2).

[5] The West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993, (West Bengal ACT XX of 1993).

[6] Maharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Act, 2012, (Maharashtra Act No. 2 of 2014).

[7] “Section 92. Repeal: The Maharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Act, 2012 is hereby repealed.”

[8] Its Statement of Objects and Reasons noted “… As per clause (1) of article 254 of the Indian Constitution, if any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any law made by the Parliament, the law made by the legislature of a State shall become void. Therefore, the Government have decided to repeal the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2015.”

[9] 86. Repeal and Savings. (1) The West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 is hereby repealed.”

[10] No. 18-HIV/3M-3/17 (PART 2)

[11] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016).

[12] The Indian Contract Act,1872 (Act NO. 9 OF 1872).

[13] The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 OF 1986).


[15] HIRA-West Bengal Real Estate 8 must known facts – ArthikDisha



[18] The West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act,2017 (West Bengal Act XLI of 2017), s. 2(i).

[19] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s 2(y).

[20] The West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act,2017 (West Bengal Act XLI of 2017), s. 2(x).

[21] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s 6.

[22] The West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act,2017 (West Bengal Act XLI of 2017), s.6.

[23] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s 80(2).

[24] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s 70.

[25] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s 70(1).

[26] The West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act,2017 (West Bengal Act XLI of 2017), s. 40(3).

[27] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s 38(3).

[28] (2002) 9 SCC 232.

[29] (1956) SCR 393.

[30] (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 1.

[31] The Constitution of India, art. 254, 256.

[32] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), ss. 88,89.

[33] Doctrine of Repugnancy – RERA vs. West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act |

[34] (1956) SCR 393.

[35] U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1953).

[36] AIR 1962 SC 1044

[37] [2002] INSC34

[38] Doctrine of Repugnancy – RERA vs. West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act |

[39] The Constitution of India, art. 246.

[40] The Constitution of India, art. 246.

[41] The Constitution of India, art. 248.

[42] The Constitution of India, art. 254.

[43] The Constitution of India, art. 254.

[44] The Constitution of India, art. 254(1)

[45] The Constitution of India, art. 254.

[46] (1955) 1 SCR 799.

[47] The Constitution of India, art. 254(2).

[48] The Constitution of India, art. 254(2).

[49] The Constitution of India, art. 254(2).

[50] Zaverbhal Amaldas Vs. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 799

[51] R Vs. Brisbane Licensing Court, (1920) 28 CLR 23).

[52] Clyde Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Cowburn (1926) 37 CLR 466

[53] Victoria Vs. Commonwealth, (1937) 58 CLR 618; Wenn Vs. Attorney-General (Vict.), (1948) 77 CLR 84

[54] (1959) Supp (2) SCR 8

[55] (1956) SCR 393.

[56] (1955) 1 SCR 799.

[57] Deep Chand Vs State of UP (1959) Supp (2) SCR 8

[58] (1964) 4 SCR 461

[59] (2012) 7 SCC 106

[60](2018) 1 SCC 407

[61] Doctrine of Repugnancy – RERA vs. West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act |

[62] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s. 88.

[63] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), s. 89.

[64] (2017) 16 SCC 741

[65] (2019(8 SCC 416).

[66] Doctrine of Repugnancy – RERA vs. West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act |

[67] (1999) 9 SCC 334

[68] (2000) 10 SCC 115

[69] (2013) 13 SCC 1

[70] (2003) 11 SCC 549

[71] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (Act NO. 16 OF 2016), ss 88,89.

[72] The Constitution of India, art. 254(2).

[73] (2011) 8 SCC 708.

[74] Doctrine of Repugnancy – RERA vs. West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act |

[75] The Constitution of India, art. 142.

[76] The Constitution of India, art. 254.

[77] Doctrine of Repugnancy – RERA vs. West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act |


Editor: Kanishka VaishSenior Editor, LexLife India.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s