Chester Hills row deepens as chief secy seeks answers, RERA defends approvals

Dhiman said he would present his position before the competent authority. “RERA is answerable to the courts,” he said.

Later, in a statement, the RERA said that all three projects — Chester Hills, Chester Hills-2, and Chester Hills-4 — were registered in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) [RED] Act, 2016, only after due verification of statutory documents.

“The registration… has been done strictly on submission of all the requisite statutory documents online,” the authority’s Administrative Officer-cum-Spokesperson, said and added that RERA examines key aspects such as clear land title, approvals from Town and Country Planning departments and municipal bodies, environmental clearances, and compliance with Section 118 wherever required before granting registration.

The RERA emphasized that project registration is subject to approvals from relevant state government departments and does not override their jurisdiction. However, it acknowledged that complaints began emerging around five to six months ago from allottees and other stakeholders. These complaints alleged violations of Section 118 of the tenancy Act, deviations in construction, and lack of basic services.

Following this, the authority initiated quasi-judicial proceedings against the project promoters. “Many show cause notices were issued regarding imposition of penalty under various provisions of the Act,” the spokesperson said, adding that notices were also sent to Solan’s Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Municipal Corporation, and the Deputy Commissioner (DC). Penalty proceedings, the authority confirmed, are still pending.

At the heart of the controversy lies a report by the SDM Solan, which found violations of Section 118. The responsibility to ensure compliance lies with the project proponents, while enforcement action falls within the domain of the district administration, the RERA said.

“The DC should take appropriate action against the project promoters for the contravention of Section 118,” the statement noted, adding that the state government has already directed the DC to act on the SDM’s findings.

A parallel issue involves allegations of unauthorized construction within the project. The Municipal Commissioner of Solan had initially ordered demolition of the deviations but later regularized them under directions from the state government. RERA has, however, directed the promoters to secure the consent of two-thirds of the allottees, failing which penalty proceedings under Section 14(2)(ii) read with Section 61 of the Act may be initiated.

The authority also clarified that proceedings under Section 7, related to revocation of project registration, have not yet been initiated, as the case has not reached that stage. Highlighting its enforcement actions, RERA said that it has already imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh on the project promoters and ordered refunds in certain cases. “In no case has RERA passed an order in favour of the promoters,” the statement read.

RERA further addressed allegations stemming from a site visit by its former chairperson, stating that such inspections are routine regulatory exercises. “Such inspections do not confer or recognize any legal status of promoter or ownership, nor do they amount to endorsement of the project,” it said, dismissing claims based on video clips as “devoid of merit.”

The authority also rejected allegations of inaction against its leadership, noting that quasi-judicial decisions are taken collectively by the full bench and not by individual members or the chairperson.

“Accordingly such allegations of inaction against the former or present chairperson are baseless and against the factual position in the case,” it added.

Earlier, in the two page letter, Chief Secretary Gupta wrote, asked if the previous RERA chairperson Shrikant Baldi “in conspiracy with non-agriculturists by his acts of willful inaction” helped in violation of provisions of Section 118, RERA & Benami Act “as … he is seen praising the project in presence of non-agriculturists”. “Whether present RERA chairperson…by inaction on the complaint….further perpetuated illegalities? Why proper scrutiny under Section 5 of RERA Act was not made…and whether the promoter had required financial/economic capacity to execute this project.”

“In the interest of allottees/consumers of the said project, you are requested to examine the matter and furnish a comprehensive factual report…since hundreds of consumers have invested their life savings in the project and violation of any law found at his belated stage would put their life savings in jeopardy”.

Baldi, who was Chief Secretary from 2019 to 2023, was the RERA chairman when clearance was accorded to Chester Hills-2 and Chester Hills-4 project. The incumbent RERA chief Dhiman was Chief Secretary from July 2022 to December, 2022. Dhiman was appointed the Chairman of RERA in July 2025.

The Chief Secretary had earlier termed a probe report by SDM Solan as “violative of law,” though subsequent developments saw the state government directing the Deputy Commissioner to continue the investigation.

Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, remains central to the dispute. The provision restricts the transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists without government approval, aiming to protect local agrarian interests from speculative acquisition.

With multiple agencies—including RERA, the district administration, and the state government—now involved, the Chester Hills case underscores the complex regulatory challenges in balancing real estate development with land protection laws, even as the fate of hundreds of homebuyers hangs in the balance.