Supreme Court
Case Title: VANDANA SABHARWAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).661/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 213
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a writ petition alleging that Rs. 13,833 crore out of Rs. 14,599 crore collected from homebuyers by the Jaypee Group was diverted through transfers to group entities and undervalued land transactions.
The matter came up before a bench comprising the Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice.
“Issue notice, returnable on 15.07.2026,” the court recorded.
Filed by a homebuyer in the 'KASABLANCA' project at Jaypee Wishtown in Noida, the petition states that despite paying for a residential unit more than a decade ago, the petitioner has received neither possession nor refund. The plea further states that the project's RERA registration expired in December 2021.
Case Title : Kabra and Associates & Ors v Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 6936 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 109
The Supreme Court has recently held that where complainants had elected to pursue the remedy available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and withdrew their complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Authority, they could not thereafter opt for the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act for the same cause of action.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had held a consumer complaint filed by the homebuyers to be maintainable.
The Court observed, "When it was open to the complainants to elect/opt for one or the other remedy that was available to them at that time and they made that choice by approaching the Authority under the provisions of the Act of 2016 in the first instance and then decided to withdraw their complaint, reserving liberty to once again file a fresh complaint before the Authority, they could not have retracted therefrom.”
Case Title : The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Naresh Sharma
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5835 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 61
The Supreme Court permitted the Himachal Pradesh Government to shift the office of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) from Shimla to Dharamshala, staying the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order that had restrained the move. A Bench comprising the Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that “operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”
The Court further ordered, “the State is permitted to shift the office of RERA to the place of its choice however, this shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition pending at the High Court.”
The court also directed that, to ensure that persons affected by RERA orders are not inconvenienced, “the appellate powers may be shifted from the Principal District Judge, Shimla to the Principal District Judge, Dharamshala.”
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing ₹2.27 Crore RERA Penalty
Case Title : The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. M/s Malwa Vanaspati and Chemicals Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19520 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 80
The Supreme Court has recently set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a Rs. 2.27 crore penalty imposed by the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MPRERA) on an industrial project developer for non-registration of its project.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that “the approach adopted by the High Court is impermissible in law.”
The court noted that the High Court was exercising judicial review in the context of entertaining a challenge to an order of the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MPRAT), which had dismissed the developer's appeal for failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the statute.
“There was no occasion for the High Court to set aside the penalty which was imposed in this context,” the Bench observed.
High Courts
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Admire Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : MA No. 68 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 13
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a company that agrees to develop land, obtain statutory approvals, and secure RERA registration before selling plots could prima facie be treated as a promoter under the real estate law.
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput dismissed an appeal filed by Admire Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. against a Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order remanding a plot buyer's complaint to RERA for fresh adjudication.
“Under the Act of 2016, word promoter has been very widely defined including a person who develops a land into a project whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots and it further provides that any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale.,” the Court held.
Limitation Act Not Applicable To Homebuyer Complaints Before RERA: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Nidhi Sao v. Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited
Case Number : MA No. 173 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 10
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has recently held that complaints filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) or its Adjudicating Officer are not subject to the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Setting aside a tribunal's suo motu order that had dismissed a homebuyer, Nidhi Sao's complaint as time-barred, the court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on its merits. The tribunal had proceeded on the basis of the respondent developer's contention that the complaint, filed on September 4, 2018, was beyond three years from the alleged cause of action arising around May 25, 2015.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “In the case at hand, the appellant filed a complaint before the RERA under Section 31 (1) of the Act, 2016 which is a creature under the special Act wherein there is no provision of limitation and even there is no express provision or implication of applicability of the Limitation Act. Thus, the Tribunal committed gross error by applying the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 31(1) of the Act before the RERA"
Case Title : Ralas and Chopda Builders & Ors. v. Jeevan Vihar Residents Welfare Society
Case Number : MA No. 49 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 4
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority has no jurisdiction to examine or question completion certificates issued by municipal authorities before May 1, 2017, when the substantive provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, came into force.
"Prima facie, a real estate project which has been certified as complete under the applicable municipal law prior to the enforcement of the RERA regime in the State of Chhattisgarh would fall outside the regulatory fold of RERA”, the court said.
Case Name: Naresh Sharma v/s Union of India and others
Case No.: CWPIL No. 38 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 12
The Himachal Pradesh High Court admitted a petition challenging the decision of the State Government to shift the Real Estate Regulatory Authority office from Shimla to Dharamshala. The Court remarked that RERA was a small institution with limited manpower and that the State ought to consider relocating larger offices instead of burdening a statutory authority with minimal staff. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “the interim order is likely to continue, keeping in view the number of employees to be shifted to the projects, which are not even remotely linked to Kangra as it would be a humongous task for the developers as such to firstly co-ordinate with the RERA office at Dharamshala and then with the other offices which give necessary permissions which are placed at Shimla.” The Court noted that the districts of Solan, Shimla and Sirmaur collectively account for 80% of RERA-registered projects in Himachal Pradesh, whereas, there are only 20 projects in Kangra.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Lko. Development Authority Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Rohit Singh v. Sushma Shukla
Case Number : RERA Appeal Defective No. - 125 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 7
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that a private settlement between a promoter and a homebuyer cannot override mandatory statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Dismissing an appeal filed by the Lucknow Development Authority, a single bench of Justice Prashant Kumar upheld an order directing payment of statutory interest to a buyer for delay in handing over possession of a flat.
The court said the law leaves no scope for promoters to avoid this obligation through private agreements. It underlined that an allottee who continues with a delayed project is entitled to interest till possession is handed over, and that the duty to pay such interest is cast on the promoter by statute. “The legislative mandate insofar such allottees is that they are entitled to interest on their deposit till the handing over of possession of the unit. A mandatory statutory obligation is cast upon the promoter to pay the interest to such allottees,” the court observed.
Case Title : Ar Landcraft Llp Ltd. Liability Partnership Thru. its Auth. Sign. v. U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Thru. its Registrar Lko. & Ors.
Case Number : Matters Under Article 227 No. - 71 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 8
The Allahabad High Court set aside a judgment of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, holding that a case heard by one bench cannot be decided by another bench if one of its members did not hear the arguments. The court said such a judgment is unsustainable in law and goes against fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that the bench that hears a matter must also decide it. It added that views of members who heard the case cannot be taken after a judgment has already been signed and delivered by another bench.
"A judgment in a matter heard by a three member Bench cannot be authored and delivered by a two member Bench, one member of which had not heard the submissions in the matter. Views of the other members. who had heard submissions in the matter cannot be taken after the judgment has been signed and delivered by another Bench", it said.
Further, it stated that “delivery of judgment by a member who has not heard submissions in the appeals is not a mere irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal which does not affect the merits of the case, rather such a judgment is nullity in the eyes of law, as it has been passed in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, which require the Bench hearing a matter to decide the same", it said.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Case Title : Royal Omkar Nests Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 3765/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 2
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside a status quo order passed against a real estate developer by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, which was functioning as the interim Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Justice Rahul Bharti held that once a tribunal acknowledges that it lacks jurisdiction, it cannot issue or continue any interim or supplementary directions. Any such directions, the court said, are “nugatory in the eyes of law”. Justice Bharti held that the status quo direction was “nothing but nugatory in the eyes of law”. The court reiterated that Section 43(3) of the RERA Act mandates that an appellate tribunal must consist of both a judicial member and a technical or administrative member. Accordingly, the High Court partially allowed the writ petition and set aside the status quo direction relating to the project's common areas. However, it did not interfere with the Tribunal's decision granting liberty to the allottees to file a fresh appeal before a properly constituted bench.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal v. Shri Ji Builders and Developers
Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 2857 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 47
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently has held that MP-RERA could not reject a real estate project registration application for non-production of a cooperative society's 25-year-old internal records when registered title documents and revenue records had already been produced.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed MP-RERA's appeal and upheld an earlier order directing the authority to process the registration application filed by Shri Ji Builders and Developers for its proposed "Krishna Orchid" project in Bhopal.
"To demand historical internal records of a cooperative from 1999, twenty-five years post-facto, is to impose an impossible burden of proof," the court observed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title : Advance India Projects Limited v. State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CWP-14732-2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 26
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to entertain a real estate developer's challenge to a Haryana RERA refund order, holding that a promoter/developer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy merely to avoid the pre-deposit requirement.
A Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri was hearing a petition filed by Advance India Projects Limited against a Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing it to refund over ₹1.02 crore to two allottees in its “AIPL Joy Gallery” commercial project in Gurugram.
“Merely because filing of the appeal by petitioner would entail a pre-deposit of some amount cannot be a ground for the petitioner to bypass the alternate remedy, which is statutory as well as efficacious,” the Court observed.
Bombay High Court
Homebuyer Labelled As 'Investor' To Undermine Rights: Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer Appeal
Case Title : M/s Sai Enterprises v. Sangeeta Ravi Punjabi & Ors.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 153 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 232
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a developer's second appeal, holding that it could not justify cancelling a flat allotment and pushing the homebuyer toward a refund by treating her as an "investor" instead of honoring the allotment. The court found that, in this case, calling the buyer an “investor” was not an innocent choice of words. She had already paid 30% of the price for a clearly identified flat. Describing her as an investor was a way to deny her the apartment and steer her toward a refund.
“From a perusal of the Development Agreement dated October 17, 2017, it also becomes abundantly clear that Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant intended to run roughshod over the rights of the Allottees by terming them as investors. True, in the ultimate analysis, the nomenclature is of no consequence. However, the repeated reference to the Allottees, from whom the first developer had accepted valuable consideration many years ago, and had also issued the allotment letter with particulars of the apartment and the dimensions thereof, as 'investors' betrayed a devious design to trample upon the rights of the Allottees,” the court said.
Case Title : Rare Townships Private Limited v. Mitul Gada
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 121 of 2026 with Second Appeal No. 122 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 173
On 30 March, the Bombay High Court held that an allottee can withdraw amounts deposited by a developer during an appeal despite the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed Rare Township's (developer) appeals and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order allowing allottee Mitul Gada to withdraw Rs. 3,26,37,193 deposited by the developer.
The Court observed: “The release of the amount ameliorates the situation of the allottee by relieving him of the financial constraints and also the mental anguish caused by the breach of obligations by the promoter for over a decade. The promoter and allottee cannot be placed on an equal footing. The capacity to withstand the deprivation of the legitimate amount vastly differs and the position of the allottee is generally very vulnerable.”
Buyers Need Not Form Separate Societies For Each Tower In Multi-Phase Project: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Gera Developers Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 184
The Bombay High Court on 1 April held that while each tower in a real estate development may qualify as a separate “project” under the statutory framework, flat purchasers are not mandatorily required to form separate co-operative housing societies for each tower. Justice Amit Borkar upheld the formation of a single unified co-operative housing society by flat purchasers despite the project being multi-phased and governed under different statutory regimes, after noting that the developer had failed to act within the timeline window of three months under Rule 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 and four months under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 to register the society. The Court observed:
“The scheme of Rule 9 of the Rules and Section 10 of the Act does not leave any discretion with the developer to act as per its convenience".
Deemed Conveyance Orders Passed Before 2025 Amendment Of MOFA Remain Valid: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mahanagar Realty v. Ganga Ishanya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14936 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 107
The Bombay High Court on 23 February held that deemed conveyance orders under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, issued prior to the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2025, remain valid and cannot be reopened merely because the amendment now aligns deemed conveyance in RERA-registered projects with completion of the last building in a layout. Explaining the effect of the saving clause, the Court observed: “Section 5 of the Amendment Act, 2025 provides that any proceedings instituted including the decisions taken, orders passed or directions issued by competent authority shall be deemed to be duly and validly executed”.
Case Title: Runwal Constructions v. Bharat Shah & Ors. (Connected Matters)
Case Number: Second Appeal Nos. 251- 261 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 310
The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) to hear appeals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) became functional.
The court ruled that the appellate tribunal could not be regarded as established merely because its chairperson and members had been appointed.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Runwal Constructions and related entities.
Rejecting the developers' challenge, the Court noted that the State government had designated the MRT as the appellate forum under RERA until a regular appellate tribunal became operational.
The Court observed, "Thus, the above aspects show that the State of Maharashtra by notification dated 28th December 2017 designated the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Brihanmumbai constituted and functioning under the Maharashtra Revenue Code to be the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals under RERA until the establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 43 of the RERA. The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Chairperson and members of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal by Government Resolution dated 8th May 2018. The said Chairperson and members took oath on 24th December 2018. Thus, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal started functioning with effect from 24th December 2018."
Bombay High Court Says Homebuyers Retain Right To Delay Interest Despite Staying With Project
Case Title : CCI Projects Private Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary & Ors.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 479 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 349
The Bombay High Court has held that homebuyers who continue with a housing project despite delayed possession do not lose their statutory right to claim interest for the delay.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by CCI Projects Private Limited and upheld a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order directing the developer to pay interest to purchasers of an apartment in the Wintergreen building of its Rivali Park project in Mumbai.
“The unqualified absolute right of the allottee stands statutorily recognised and the continuation with the project, which if expressed in the language of Section 55 of Contract Act, constitutes acceptance of delayed performance, does not impact the unfettered statutory right conferred by Section 18 of RERA Act to claim interest,” the court observed.
Case Title : Upvan Woodlands Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M/s Upvan Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11551 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 331
Conveyance of land in favour of a co-operative housing society cannot be postponed until completion of an entire layout development, the Bombay High Court has reiterated while setting aside an order that rejected a society's deemed conveyance application as premature.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “This Court has already held that conveyance cannot be postponed till completion of entire layout development and that land can be conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-Society even before completion of the layout development.”
The ruling came in a petition filed by Upvan Woodlands Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which challenged an order dated May 20, 2025 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting its application for deemed conveyance.
TDR From Reserved Land Cannot Defeat Deemed Conveyance Rights Of Societies: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Kalpita Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9694 of 2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 351
On 18 June, the Bombay High Court upheld the grant of deemed conveyance in favour of three housing societies in Mumbai, holding that compensation or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arising from acquisition of land reserved for a municipal market and a primary school cannot be treated as development potential of a residential layout so as to delay conveyance.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly allowed a writ petition filed by Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. challenging the deemed conveyance order, while rejecting the developer's contention that future development rights from the reserved lands could be used for proposed Buildings N and P and therefore justify deferring conveyance. The Bench observed:
“The compensation receivable either in monetary terms or in the form of TDR cannot be treated as a development potential for land to be conveyed in favour of Respondent-Societies. Once land is acquired, it would get separated from the layout and would have no relationship with the development carried out in the layout.”
Case Title: Rajan Chandiramani v. Swadhinta Builders LLP & Connected Matters
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 559 of 2025 & Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 355
The Bombay High Court has held that the liberty granted to homebuyers to seek revocation of a project's registration does not foreclose their right to execute an order directing completion of the project through other modes available in law.
Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the ruling while allowing appeals filed by several allottees of the stalled "Shri Vallabh Residency" project in Kandivali (West), Mumbai.
The court set aside a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) order refusing to permit part of a proposed amendment to the allottees' execution applications. The amendment sought completion of the project either by the allottees or through another agency appointed by the tribunal at the developer's cost.
The court observed, "If the revocation of registration was to be provided as a panacea for the disobedience of the orders passed by the Authorities under the RERA 2016, the Parliament would not have made multiple provisions for enforcement of the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act."
Delhi High Court
Case Title: R. C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Sharad Maheshwari & Anr.
Case Number : RFA 37/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 510
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court decree directing R. C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. to refund ₹18 lakh to Sharad Maheshwari and Vandana Maheshwari. The court found that the developer had illegally cancelled their villa allotment and effectively coerced them into accepting a purported “full and final settlement.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the developer's appeal. She observed that settlements extracted without free consent cannot extinguish a buyer's claim.
“It is well-settled that a plea of full and final settlement, must be founded on free consent. Where the acceptance of a lesser amount occurs under protest or coercive circumstances, it does not constitute a binding accord and satisfaction and, consequently, does not extinguish the original claim.”, the court observed
“The Plaintiff, thus occupied a vulnerable position and was left with no viable alternative but to accept whatever amount was offered. The learned District Judge correctly observed that the Plaintiff, when pitted against a large developer with superior bargaining power, was effectively coerced into accepting the Rs. 44 lakhs offered by the Defendant,” the court added.
Madras High Court
Case Title : Vandana Parvez v. IVR Hotels and Resorts Ltd & Ors. (batch matters)
Case Number : CMSA Nos. 35-41 of 2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 104
The Madras High Court has recently held that authorities under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 can examine the “affairs” of promoters (developers), including financial dealings, while dealing with complaints by homebuyers. It set aside orders of TNRERA and TNREAT and remanded the Aavisa Golf Township dispute for fresh consideration, including whether the Kotak Mahindra entities qualify as “promoters” under the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan said, “The Act, having been brought to alleviate the grievances of the homebuyers, has conferred extensive powers the RERA. The authority has the power to initiate an inquiry into the affairs of any promoter or allottee or agent. While conducting this inquiry, it has the same powers as that of a civil court, while trying a suit. This power can be exercised either suo moto or on a complaint. The authority is also empowered, at any time, to call upon any promoter, allottee, or real estate agent to furnish such information or explanation relating to its affairs, as the authority may require. In our view, the word “affairs” is expansive enough to include inquiry into financial investigations too."
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Ltd v. B. Srinivas Rao & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 10
The Telangana High Court has held that a housing society that excludes economically weaker sections (EWS) and lower-income group (LIG) allottees is unsustainable in law. It observed that excluding such allottees from access to common facilities is violative of the principle of equality under Article 14 and undermines their right to dignified living under Article 21.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed, “the exclusion of LIG/EWS allottees from access to common facilities and participation in the association is violative of the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and undermines their right to dignified living under Article 21"
Kerala High Court
RERA Orders Not Civil Decrees, Recoverable As Arrears Of Land Revenue: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Sanroyal Builders and Contractors Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Divya Balu
Case Number : MSA No. 121 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 67
The Kerala High Court has held that amounts awarded by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that such orders do not amount to “decrees” requiring execution through civil courts.
A Bench of Justice Easwaran S held that subordinate legislation cannot override the Act. Referring to the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction, the Court noted that matters falling within the domain of RERA authorities cannot be entertained by civil courts. It further emphasised that proceedings before RERA are complaint-based and not in the nature of civil suits.
Clarifying the nature of RERA orders, the Court said they do not meet the definition of a “decree” under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which arises from adjudication in a civil suit. “Admittedly, the proceedings before the R.E.R.A. are not in the nature of a suit rather on a complaint. Hence, the decision or order of R.E.R.A. or by the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal arising out of such proceedings would not be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC, 1908,” it said.
Non-Registration Of Ongoing Project Does Not Bar RERA Or Hinder Allottee Rights: Kerala High Court
Case Title : The Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WP(C) No.6169 of 2026 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37
The Kerala High Court on 20 February held that a developer's failure to mandatorily register a housing project cannot be invoked to challenge RERA's jurisdiction, and cannot deprive allottees of statutory relief.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO), observing that once a project is compulsorily registrable under Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, complaints by allottees are maintainable before the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority(K-RERA). The Bench observed: “The breaches on the part of the promoter to fulfill the mandatory obligation under the statute, cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate rights of allottees that flow from the enactment.”
Case Title : Jacob Eapen Sam & Ors. v. Varghese Nettikadan & Ors.
Case Number : MSA Nos. 12 & 15 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 19
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has the power to remand matters to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for fresh consideration, even though the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, does not expressly provide for such a power. The court dismissed appeals challenging a remand order passed by the tribunal and upheld the direction for reconsideration.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim said the tribunal's appellate powers are wide enough to permit a remand where reconsideration is required. The court noted that Section 44(3) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to pass such orders as it thinks fit and that this provision must be understood in light of the object of the legislation. “In the light of the object of the enactment, viz., a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism, it could only be held that the Tribunal is having wide powers under the Act to mould reliefs for effective and complete adjudication of the matter,” the court said.
Case Title Prasanth B. & Anr. v. Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (and connected cases)
Case Number W.A. Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060, 1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 87
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a builder could not be permitted to calculate the mandatory pre-deposit for pursuing a RERA appeal on the basis of the Marginal Cost of Funds-based Lending Rate (MCLR) instead of the State Bank of India's Benchmark Prime Lending Rate plus 2% prescribed under Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018.
The Court observed that such a course would "render Rule 18 a dead letter."
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar allowed a batch of appeals filed by homebuyers against Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The bench vacated an interim order of a Single Judge that had permitted the builder to calculate the pre-deposit on the basis of MCLR instead of the rate prescribed under Rule 18.
"We are of the view that the intent of the Legislature was deliberate and the same was to fix a deterrent rate that would compensate allottees/buyers meaningfully and discourage promoter/builder defaults. If the order is allowed to stand, every promoter/builder against whom an order is issued by the RERA would at the stage of filing of the appeal insist on refixation of the pre-deposit with External Benchmark Lending Rate (EBLR), which would lower their burden even further. This would render Rule 18 a dead letter and deprive the provision of certainty and enforceability. ," the Court observed.
Case Title : The Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : WP(C) No. 17474 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 108
The Kerala High Court has held that the exemption from registration available for renovation, repair or redevelopment projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be claimed where the original project itself was required to be registered under the law.
Dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) and its Project Director, the court upheld interim orders of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA). The authority had held complaints filed by homebuyers of the Chander Kunj Army Towers project in Kochi to be maintainable.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that once a project is found to be mandatorily registrable under the Act, the exemption under Section 3(2)(c) is unavailable.
"When the original project itself is found to be mandatorily registrable under Section 3, the question of exemption as contemplated under Section 3(2)(c) would not arise.", it held.
Case Title : Greha Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 21189 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 113
The Kerala High Court recently (June 22) admitted a writ petition challenging a Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) order requiring registration of projects built on less than 500 square metres of land if they comprise more than eight units.
The matter came up before Justice Gopinath P. The court admitted the petition and granted K-RERA time to obtain instructions.
Greha Homes Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, contends that its "Greha Five Elements" project, comprising 14 apartment units on 445 square metres of land at Kanayannoor Village in Elamkulam, Ernakulam, falls outside K-RERA's jurisdiction.
To consider the contentions raised on merits, the court directed that adjudication of any complaint against the petitioner concerning the project be deferred by 10 days.
The court observed, "In order to consider the contentions raised on merits, I direct that the adjudication of any complaint against the petitioner in respect of the project in question shall be deferred by a period of 10 days."
Calcutta High Court
Repeal Of 1993 West Bengal Building Act Does Not Extinguish Pending Proceedings: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : R.D.B. Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number : WPA No. 28998 of 2023 (with CAN No. 1 of 2024)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 61
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld compensation orders passed against R.D.B. Builders in a long-running flat dispute, holding that the repeal of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 does not extinguish proceedings already pending under it. The Court held: “The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any specific order that the repeal of the Act of 1993 would be effective retrospectively. The Hon'ble Court also not passed any order for transfer of all pending cases under the Act of 1993 to the concern authorities under RERA.”
Uttarakhand High Court
Landowner Who Transfers Development Rights Is Jointly Liable To Homebuyers: Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Raj Kumar Saini v. District Magistrate, Haridwar & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 45 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (UTT) 3
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently reiterated that a landowner who hands over land and extensive development rights to a builder cannot avoid responsibility towards homebuyers and can be subjected to recovery proceedings even if the flats were sold by the developer. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Ashish Naithani said liability towards homebuyers does not rest on the builder alone.
"The liability, as against the allottees, from whom money was realized by the developer solely on the basis of the rights flowing under the development agreement would be joint and several, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to defeat the lawful claim of the allottees on the technical grounds, which have been raised before us.", it said.
After examining the development agreement, the High Court found that the landowner had, in effect, transferred almost all rights in the property. “The petitioner has purportedly transferred all his rights in the property in favour of the developer,” the court said.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Sobha Limited v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 5934 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 30
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not repugnant to the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, observing that the two statutes govern different stages in the life of a real estate project.
The finding came in a petition filed by Sobha Limited concerning the Sobha HRC Pristine residential development in Bengaluru.
Justice M.G. Uma allowed the plea and set aside the registration of a cooperative society that had been formed by a group of purchasers in the project.
The court observed,
“Under such circumstances, it is to be held that there is no repugnancy between the provisions of RERA and KAOA. Moreover, the application of the provisions of RERA will be to projects which are under development till handing over of possession of the apartment to the owners and the undivided share of the project in favour of the association of owners formed under the provisions of KAOA, whereas, the provisions of KAOA will be applicable once such handing over is complete and the association is formed in accordance with law. In other words, the provisions under RERA are applicable to the pre-ownership stage, whereas the provisions under KAOA are applicable to the post-ownership.”
Case Title : Embassy One Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14899 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 19
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the existence of an appellate remedy does not prevent it from exercising writ jurisdiction in a real estate dispute where due opportunity has not been afforded to one of the parties.
The court set aside a Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing Embassy One Developers Pvt Ltd to pay over Rs. 4.24 crore as delay interest without considering its objections.
Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad said, “An alternative remedy need not always be a reason for this Court to refuse the exercise of the discretion and plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” The court added, “for complete adjudication with due opportunity, the Authorities must consider Statement of Objections filed.”
It further observed that if liability to pay interest is imposed, “it must be with a reasonable opportunity lest there be reason for multiplicity in the proceedings”
Karnataka High Court Stays RERA's Applicability To BDA Layouts Based On Pre-Act Land Acquisition
Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority v. Union of India & Others
Case Number : W.P. No. 14520/2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 79
On 3 June, the Karnataka High Court stayed the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) to residential layouts and housing schemes undertaken by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) where preliminary land acquisition notifications predated the Act, holding that the issue requires detailed examination.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj granted interim relief to the BDA until 6 July 2026 and observed that the outcome of the case could affect allotments made to several hundred members of the public. He held:
“The stay is granted to examine the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the projects of statutory authorities like the BDA, who are implementing projects on the basis of acquisition of the land, prior to such projects being initiated, prior to the commencement of the RERA.”
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title Vardhman Developers v. Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number RERA APPEAL No. 07 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 8
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently held that the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for entertaining a promoter's appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, applies not only in cases involving penalties.
It also applies where a promoter challenges directions requiring payment of amounts to allottees, including interest and compensation.
A bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Vardhman Developers. The appeal challenged an order of the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directing the developer to deposit 50% of the amount payable to allottees in compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.
Explaining the scope of the provision, the court observed,
“The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act is in two parts. Earlier part of the provision deals with the cases of penalty, where the pre-condition for entertaining appeal is deposit of 30% of the penalty or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The second and the latter part deals with any other amounts including interest or compensation, imposed by the Tribunal and in such cases, the same is required to be deposited as a precondition for availing the remedy of appeal”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : MP Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Briddhi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Case Number : Misc. Appeal No. 7743 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 11
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal after finding that it was passed by an improperly constituted Bench. The court held that the Tribunal decided the case without the participation of a Technical Member, a requirement mandated by law. Such an order, it said, cannot stand. “As per the provisions of Section 45 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal must consist of the Chairman and two members, one of whom must be a Technical Member,” the Court held. The impugned order, it added, “cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
On examining the record, it found that the impugned order was passed only by the Chairman and a Judicial Member, with no Technical Member involved. Relying on G.S. Enterprises v. Yogesh Agrawal, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 45 is mandatory. “The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The order impugned, thus, stands set aside,” it held.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Tamil Nadu REAT
Case Title : M/s. Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasa Siva Naga Ganesh Kumar
Case Number: Appeal No.25 of 2026 and M.A. No.72 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 29
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order appointing an independent engineer to inspect alleged defects and irregularities in a villa project developed by Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd., saying the exercise would help ascertain the alleged irregularities and defects and would not prejudice the developer.
"Further, appointing an independent Engineer will not cause prejudice to the appellant/promoter in anyway. In fact, it will be helpful, not only to the respondent/complainant, but also to the appellant/promoter to find out the irregularities, if any and to rectify the defects found by the independent Engineer.” the Tribunal said.
Dismissing the developer's appeal, Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy, Judicial Member K. Babu and Administrative Member Selvi Apoorva held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) had rightly directed inspection of Villa No.55B in the “Malles Akankssha” project.
Haryana REAT
Case Title: M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram
Case Number: Appeal No. 1226 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 34
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently upheld Haryana RERA's refusal to register Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd.'s multi-level parking-cum-commercial project. It held that the company was merely a licensee with no right to transfer any part of the property and therefore did not qualify as a promoter under the law.
A bench of Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan held that the company's role was limited to developing infrastructure for Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). It was only entitled to recover its investment through operation of the parking facility, licensing commercial spaces, and earning revenue through advertisements and hoardings.
“The appellant being concessionaire has no right to further transfer by sale, lease or otherwise any part of the property/commercial infrastructure.”, it ruled.
Haryana REAT Rejects DLF Challenge To Refund Order, Holds Pre-Deposit Mandatory For Promoter Appeals
Case Title : M/s DLF Limited v. Gautam Rana
Case Number: CM No. 943 of 2026 in/and Appeal No. 130 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 31
On 1 May, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) held that an appeal filed by promoters challenging a refund order under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must necessarily be accompanied by the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5).
The Bench comprising Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan refused to entertain the appeal filed by DLF Limited against a refund order passed in favour of homebuyer Gautam Rana, holding that compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement is a threshold condition for maintainability. It held:
“An appeal, which is not accompanied with the pre-deposit, deserves outright dismissal. Challenge on the ground that the order is unsustainable, can only be considered if the appeal is found to be maintainable.”
Unregistered FAR Not By Itself A RERA Violation Without Sale Or Marketing: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Tulip Infratech Private Limited v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram
Case Number : Appeal No. 124 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 19
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) held that the mere existence of unutilised or unregistered FAR in a real estate project does not, by itself, constitute a violation of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in the absence of any evidence of actual marketing, sale, or booking. It reduced a late fee imposed on Tulip Infratech Private Limited from Rs 1,75,87,714 to Rs 75,00,000 as excessive and disproportionate.
Case Title: Pareena Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mabood Aryaman
Case Number : Appeal No. 577 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 6
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has dismissed an appeal by Pareena Infrastructure Private Limited and upheld a compensation award in favour of a homebuyer, holding that a refund with interest does not bar a separate claim for compensation.
A bench comprising member Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan held that compensation for financial loss and mental agony under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is an independent remedy.
“Thus, the present proceedings arise under a distinct statutory provision concerning compensation and are independent in nature. The claim for compensation is therefore not hit by the principle of res judicata, as it is not grounded on the same cause of action but represents a separate relief that the Act itself recognizes under Section 71", it held.
Misleading Averments Before Tribunal Cannot Go Unchecked: Haryana REAT Dismisses Alpha Corp Appeal
Case Title: Alpha Corp. Development Private Limited v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula
Case Number : Appeal No. 102 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 7
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has warned that misleading averments and false affidavits filed before it “cannot be permitted to go unchecked” and would ordinarily invite punitive action.
The caution came while dismissing an appeal filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited, after the tribunal found that the developer had made “wholly incorrect and misleading” statements in an affidavit concerning the status of a completion certificate for one of its projects.
A bench comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta, Judicial Member Virender Parshad, and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan said it had noticed that appeals were increasingly being filed with incorrect statements, often supported by affidavits sworn despite awareness of the true factual position.
“The person swearing a false affidavit must be held accountable for attempting to mislead a quasi-judicial forum,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : TARC Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case Number : Appeal No. 225 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 8
Terming the forfeiture of Rs. 25 lakh for a two-day delay in submitting fire scheme approval “grossly disproportionate,” the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority against developer M/s TARC Limited.
A coram comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan observed, “Forfeiture of 25 lakhs for such a minor infraction, especially when other compliances were impeccable and no homebuyer prejudice is shown, is grossly disproportionate. Penalties under RERA must be just and equitable, not punitive for technicalities. Thus, equity demands setting aside the forfeiture."
"Penalties under RERA must be just and equitable, not punitive for technicalities", the tribunal held.
Uttar Pradesh REAT
Case Title : Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case Number : Appeal-132/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 13
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that where a decree has attained finality between the parties, a promoter cannot maintain an appeal against a consequential order passed in execution proceedings without first depositing the entire decretal amount, including interest, as mandated under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. “Sub-section (5) of Section 43 confers upon any person aggrieved to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The proviso to Sub-section (5) provides where a promoter files an appeal with the Tribunal, 'it shall not be entertained' without the promoter 'first having deposited' with the Tribunal, the 'total amount to be paid to the allottee, including interest' before the said appeal is heard. In other words, promoter, assailing a consequential order in execution proceedings of an unchallenged judgment/decree, is required in the first instance to deposit the decretal amount granted in favour of the allottee being the total amount to be paid to the allottee”, the tribunal said.
Case Title : M/s Park Town Complex Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar
Case Number : Appeal No.617 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 17
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) at Lucknow has held that while the right of a party to file a reply may be closed if they fail to do so despite sufficient opportunities, such a right must be expressly and formally closed by the authority before proceeding to decide the case on merits. A coram of Judicial Member Sanjai Khare and Technical Member Devindar Singh Chaudhry set aside a refund order of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and observed that: “The basic principle of Natural Justice is that a lis should be decided on merits after ensuring that sufficient opportunities have been given to parties for filing their pleadings and documents. If opposite party is not filing reply/documents intentionally and deliberately even after sufficient opportunities, opposite parties right to file reply can be closed and thereafter arguments should be heard and final order should be passed."
Virtual Office Spaces Treated As Intangible Property, Fall Outside RERA's Scope: Uttar Pradesh REAT
Case Title : Diograzia Realcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhutani Group
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 382 to 392 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 39
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that non-lockable or virtual office spaces fall outside the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It ruled that the law governs physical real estate units and does not cover such intangible investment interests.
The tribunal consequently set aside U.P. RERA's directions requiring Bhutani Group to execute conveyance deeds, hand over possession and pay delay interest.
The ruling was delivered by a tribunal comprising Judicial Member Sanjai Khare and Technical Member Devindar Singh Chaudhry.
The tribunal ruled, "Having regard to the provisions of the Act, virtual space is not considered to be covered under the Act, 2016, which primarily regulates sale and purchase of physical real estate units in a building, and does not explicitly address intangible digital property like virtual space."
"The property law principles, such as, exclusivity, transferability and enforceability still struggle to apply to virtual property because of their intangible nature. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the allottee of a virtual space is promised a proportionate share of lease rent payable in future which is not akin to handing over/taking possession of a unit earmarked by boundaries for which the buyer/allottee has paid an amount to the promoter. It is, therefore, not within the purview of the Act, 2016. The dispute, is of a civil nature pertaining to investment, whereas, Act 2016 deals with builder-buyer relationship with regard to delivery of physical possession of the unit to the allottee or with withdrawal from the delayed project as per provisions of Section 18 of Act, 2016. The allottee can take remedy for breach of the terms of the agreement before an appropriate forum in accordance with law," it added, explaining its rationale.
Maharashtra REAT
Developers Need Not Refund GST, TDS, Stamp Duty While Refunding Flat Consideration: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Narendra Ramchand Ochani & Anr. v. Veena Realcon Private Ltd.
Case Number : Appeal No. AT006000000063823 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 30
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a developer cannot ordinarily be directed to refund GST, MVAT, TDS, stamp duty and registration charges paid by homebuyers to Government authorities.
The ruling came while the Tribunal was ordering refund in a delayed housing project dispute.
“We are of the view that the said taxes and duties were paid to the Government. The said amounts are not towards the consideration amount for the subject flat,” the tribunal said.
"With regard to TDS, the said amount is deposited by the allottee directly with the Government and the promoter receives the credit of their advance tax. However, promoter is not liable to refund the said amount because the TDS was submitted to the Income Tax Department, the promoter is not responsible for the refunding it to the allottee. An appropriate recourse is through the tax authority and the allottee can apply for it to the Income Tax Depaftment.” it added.
Maharashtra REAT Bars RERA Relief For Rehabilitation Flat Disputes In Redevelopment Projects
Case Title : Sudhir Vitthal Mulay v. Rui Universal Realties
Case Number : Appeal No. AT005000000174633 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 33
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 4 May held that existing housing society members cannot seek relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in disputes relating to rehabilitation flats allotted in redevelopment projects, as such disputes arise from the development agreement executed between the society and the developer.
Members Shriram R. Jagtap (J) and Dr. Rajagopal Devara (A) dismissed an appeal filed by Sudhir Vitthal Mulay against Rui Universal Realties and clarified that in redevelopment projects, RERA applies only to the sale component and not to rehabilitation flats allotted to existing society members. The Tribunal observed:
“Accordingly, the transactions and contractual obligations are directly governed by the said development agreement. Any dispute arising therefrom must be enforced either individually or through the Society, in accordance with the terms of said development agreement. The said development agreement cannot be enforced under the provisions of RERA Act, 2016.”
Case Title : Kamlesh Valji Balsara & Anr. v. M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure and Realty & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : Appeal No. AT06/01035/2025 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 26
Holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear complaints by allottees against lending banks, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) refused to stay recovery proceedings initiated against homebuyers, while restraining the promoter from creating third-party rights in the flats. The tribunal clarified that RERA authorities can examine claims against banks in cases such as where loans are extended to a promoter and, upon default, the lender steps into the shoes of the promoter.
In the present case, however, the loans were extended directly to individual homebuyers, and therefore the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain claims against the lending bank. The Bench comprising Chairperson S. S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed, “we are of the view that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any complaint by allottees against the lending bank, who has lent loan to the allottees, and pass any order against the bank, who has initiated action under the SARFAESI Act against the allottees"
Case Title: Janak Laxmichand Bhavsar & Ors. v. M/s. Aditya Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006000000345507 & connected appeals of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 28
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that homebuyers who executed agreements for sale with an erstwhile developer cannot enforce their claims for possession, interest, or other entitlements arising from those agreements against the society or a new developer due to the absence of privity of contract.
Dismissing the appeals, the tribunal upheld the order dated August 26, 2024 passed by MahaRERA, rejecting the homebuyers' claims for possession, interest, and cancellation of the new project registration.
A Coram of Chairperson S. S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that "In the above circumstances, the issue of whether the allottees who have executed and registered the agreements for sale with the erstwhile promoter can enforce their agreements for sale or any entitlements against the society or its property or the new promoter appointed by the society as well as whether the society can be termed as promoter within section 2 (zk) of the RERA Act, 20L6 have been answered by the series of judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court."
Case Title : CCI Projects Private Limited v. Ramesh Shivsaran Singh & Ors. (and connected appeals)
Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006-53079 to 53179 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 27
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that homebuyers can claim interest for delayed possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 even if they continued making payments after the promised possession date.
A bench of Judicial Member Shriram R. Jagtap and Administrative Member Rajgopal Devara rejected the developer's reliance on Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to argue waiver of claims.
The tribunal said, “The substantive provisions of Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA Act, 2016 would prevail to provide interest and/or compensation on account of delay, rendering Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act ineffective. Right conferred under Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016 to allottees is indefeasible. Section 18 of RERA Act itself is a notice to the promoter about the claim of allottees and therefore, merely because allottees have made payments to promoter towards consideration value even after unilateral change of dates of possession by the promoter that does not mean that allottees have waived their right to claim interest. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no waiver and allottees are well within their right to claim interest for delay in possession in terms of Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA Act, 2016.”
Case Title : Jessica Arun Naidu & Ors. v. M/s Expat Projects and Development Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. G-20, G-21, G-22, G-23 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 24
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has recently held that compensation cannot be awarded to homebuyers in the absence of proof of actual loss, ruling that notional claims such as loss of property appreciation, time value of money, missed investment opportunities, EMI burden, inflation, and increased cost of living are insufficient to determine compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Holding that the appellants had failed to establish any actual loss, the Tribunal observed that “compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of notional losses” and requires clear evidence of damages arising from delay in handing over possession. A Bench of Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, however, partly allowed the appeals by modifying the refund order passed by the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority in favour of homebuyers who had booked flats in the “Expat Vida Phase-II” project developed by Expat Projects and Development Private Limited.
Case Title : Smt. Deepa R. v. Rajiv Raghavan Pillai
Case Number : Appeal No. RC-3 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 20
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has dismissed a plea seeking substitution of a promoter in a Goa-based real estate project, holding that such substitution cannot be permitted once the project's registration has expired and that the only remedy available is to seek fresh registration under the Act. A coram of Judicial Member Shriram R. Jagtap and Administrative Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara dismissed an appeal filed by Deepa R., proprietor of Engineers Club and purchaser of the project land, against developer Rajiv Raghavan Pillai, who was recorded as the promoter of the “Engineer's Club” project in Goa. It uphled the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order rejecting her plea for substitution of promoter.
The tribunal observed, “Substitution of promoter presupposes the existence of a valid and subsisting registration of a real estate project. In the instant case, the project registration has expired and the project is nonoperational. Accordingly, there exists no valid registration in which substitution can be effected. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant to replace her name with that of developer has no merit and invalid.”
Settlement Talks, Vague Legal Advice Can't Justify 299-Day Delay In Filing Appeal: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Mukesh Mangilal Jain v. Acme Industries Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Misc. Application No. 107 of 2025 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT12500066
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 39
he Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has refused to condone a 299-day delay in an appeal filed by a homebuyer against Acme Industries Private Limited.
The tribunal held that claims of settlement talks, conflicting legal advice, and a family bereavement were not enough to justify such a prolonged delay.
A coram of Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara observed: "The Applicant has neither disclosed the particulars of the alleged advice nor placed any material on record to demonstrate as to how such advice prevented him from availing the statutory remedy available within the prescribed period. A vague plea regarding legal advice, unsupported by any material record, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for substantial delay in filing the appeal."
MahaREAT Grants Interim Relief to Homebuyer, Says RERA Jurisdiction Not Ousted by Arbitration Clause
Case Title: Sanju Daulatraj Desai v. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Misc. Application No. 770 of 2025 in Appeal No. AT06/00774/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 5
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), Mumbai, granted interim relief to a homebuyer of the "Rustomjee Crown" project, holding that an arbitration clause in an allocation letter cannot be deemed to oust RERA's jurisdictional power. Additionally, in order to avoid future third-party complications, the Tribunal imposed a status quo on the subject flat and held that a developer cannot demand more than 10% of the consideration without a registered agreement for sale. Relying on the Bombay High Court decision in M/s. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rahul Pagariya, the Tribunal led by a two-member bench, comprising of S. S. Shinde J. (Chairperson) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member), held that "the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority is not ousted, even if the agreement between the promoter and the allottee contains arbitration clause."
Society Members Can File RERA Complaint Against Developer Despite Not Being Allottees: MahaREAT
Case Title : Mr. Sandeep Kolge & Ors. v. Peninsula Land Limited
Case Number : Appeal No. AT001000000144297 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 11
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has held that members of a cooperative housing society forming part of a larger layout can maintain a complaint against a developer even if they are not allottees in the newly registered phase of the project.
A Bench comprising Members Shri Shriram R. Jagtap and Dr. Rajagopal Devara set aside the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) order, which had dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, and held that such members fall within the expression “any aggrieved person” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The Tribunal recorded:
“Section 31 makes it clear that any aggrieved person may file complaint with the Authority for violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA Act. The appellants/complainants being members of the housing society within the larger layout developed in different phases are aggrieved persons and therefore the complaint is maintainable.”
Mreat Stays MahaRERA Recall Order After Finding Two Digitally Signed Versions Of Same Order
Case Title : Pramod Ashtekar & Anr. v. Nirmal Lifestyle Limited & Ors
Case Number : AT00601567 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 9
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) recently stayed a recall order passed by the MahaRERA Chairperson, holding that inherent powers cannot be exercised where the statute provides an express appellate remedy. The Tribunal also raised serious concerns over the existence of two digitally signed versions of the same order in a single complaint.
A Tribunal comprising Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde and Member Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande passed the interim order in an appeal filed by homebuyers Pramod Ashtekar and another, staying the recall order and observing that the matter warranted investigation. The Bench held: “integrity of judicial proceedings is of paramount importance to ensure trust of the litigants and public on the judicial forums".
Telangana REAT
Case Title: Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP v. Mrs. Deepa Suraj Premi & Anr.
Case Number: T.A. No.45 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 32
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld a nearly ₹11.00 lakh penalty against developer Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP for executing a sale agreement with homebuyers that was materially different from the standard agreement it had uploaded before the Telangana RERA at the time of project registration.
“The act of the appellant/promoter in changing the format and executing a completely different agreement of sale, even though some terms may be similar, is impermissible. Therefore, we are of the view that the conduct of the appellant not only contravenes Rule 38 of the Rules but also amounts to furnishing false information and deliberate suppression of material facts and as such the learned Regulatory Authority has rightly held that the appellant has violated Rule 38 of the Rules by not adhering to the format of the agreement for sale as stipulated in the annexure to the said Rule and imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 60 of the Act.”, the tribunal held.
Case Title : N.L. Ravi Shankar & Anr. v. The Registrar, TG Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number: T.A. No. 65 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 37
On 8 June, the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) held that persons claiming independent ownership rights over project land cannot challenge the registration of a project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, where they are neither allottees nor “aggrieved persons” under the Act, and that such disputes fall outside the jurisdiction of RERA.
Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy and Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy dismissed an appeal filed by N.L. Ravi Shankar and N. Chandrakala and upheld the Telangana RERA order returning their complaint as not maintainable. The Bench held:
“We are of the considered view that the appellants cannot be said to be 'aggrieved persons' to take recourse to Section 31(1) of the Act. Thus, from the above analysis, it is evident that the appellants having no concern whatsoever cannot be said to have any locus standi to knock the doors of the Act for redressal of their grievance.”
Odisha REAT
Case Title : Soumya Ranjan Jena v. Priyata Lipsa & Ors.
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 116 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 25
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) has held that under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, only statutorily recognised parties such as promoters, allottees, or real estate agents can be made respondents in a complaint, setting aside an order rejecting a site in-charge's plea for deletion from a flat dispute.
A coram of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das observed: “It is also notable that, as per section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, an aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. This means the respondent of a complaint u/sec. 31 of the Act must belong to either of these three categories. In the instant case, there is no material to hold the appellant as a representative of the promoter-company, or an allottee or a real estate agent in respect of the project “Basera Aangan”. The alleged incidents in the complaint even if are true do not place the appellant in the status of representative of the respondent no.2-promoter company"
Odisha REAT Issues Document Checklist For Authorities To Determine Promoter Status Under RERA
Case Title : Shri T. Kiran Kumar v. The Secretary, ORERA
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No.21 of 2024 (Arising out of SMCC No.163 of 2021)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 21
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has set aside a 10 lakh penalty imposed on T. Kiran Kumar, holding that a person cannot be treated as a “promoter” under the real estate law without documentary evidence and directing the Authority to rely on specific records before fixing liability. A bench of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das held that liability cannot rest solely on inspection reports.
Referring to the absence of ownership records, development agreements, statutory permissions, and transaction or marketing documents linking Kumar to the project, the tribunal observed, “So in absence of the above mentioned materials it cannot be concluded only on the basis of the inspection report dtd. 15.7.2022 of the Enforcement Officer of the ORERA that Sri T.Kiran Kumar has developed a plotted project in the name 'SSR Layout' at Ginjriguda without registering it with the ORERA”.
Odisha REAT Holds Builders Cannot Retain Maintenance Funds Without Audited Accounts
Case Title : NBCC (India) Ltd. v. NBCC Imperia Residents' Welfare Association (NIRWA) & Anr.
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 124 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 23
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that a builder cannot withhold residents' funds unilaterally without maintaining transparent accounts supported by authenticated records or audited statements to justify utilisation of maintenance funds. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das directed NBCC (India) Ltd. to refund the Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) amount of Rs. 2,32,54,200 to the NBCC Imperia Residents' Welfare Association (NIRWA). It observed:
“The appellant-promoter having failed to produce proper accounts of the collected maintenance charges and expenditures there from together with supporting documents, his claim that the maintenance account had been exhausted and therefore the excess expenditure of Rs.35,14,094.76 towards maintenance had to be made from a total deposit of Rs.2,32,54,200/- in the corpus fund account and accordingly he is liable to refund only a corpus fund deposit of Rs.1,96,38,904.34 to the respondent not.1-association, is not acceptable.”
Case Title: M/s. Evos Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Seema Mohapatra
Case Number: OREAT Appeal No.150 of 2024 (Arising out of C.C. No.308 of 2022)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 38
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) has recently upheld an Odisha RERA order directing Evos Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. to restore a sewage treatment plant (STP) in its "City Homes" project to the location shown in the sanctioned plan.
The tribunal accepted a homebuyer's grievance that the relocation had affected the ambience of her flat.
Rejecting the builder's plea that restoring the STP would be costly and affect other residents, the tribunal observed:=
"The further plea of the appellant that installation of the STP again at its original position would incur huge expenditure and will adversely affect the interest of the developer and other allottees, is not acceptable as the appellant should have thought about the expenditure before shifting the STP from its original position in deviation to the sanctioned plan."
Location Of Project Immaterial For RERA Applicability, Odisha REAT Dismisses Developer's Appeal
Case Title : Shree Infra Properties Pvt. Limited v. Divya Narayan Panda
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 53 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 10
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has reaffirmed that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 applies to ongoing housing projects regardless of whether they are located within municipal limits or in gram panchayat areas.
The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by Shree Infra Properties Pvt. Ltd.
The Bench of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., observed:
“The plea raised for the first time in the appeal however shows the appellant's misconception of law as the applicability of the RERA Act is no way relevant to the location of the real estate project. Section 3 of the Act and the Newtech Promoters case law make it clear that, real estate projects, that are ongoing on the date of commencement of the RERA Act and for which completion certificate has not been issued will come under its purview. The place where a real estate project is developed is immaterial.
Rajasthan REAT
Rajasthan REAT Dismisses 20 Homebuyers' Refund Appeals After Project Completion Certificate
Case Title : Lalita Soni & Ors. v. M/s Shree Ram Balaji Developers and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 288/2024 to 307/2024 and 01/2025 to 03/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 12
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), Jaipur, has recently dismissed appeals filed by 20 homebuyers seeking refunds in the “Sai Angan” housing project at Kuchaman City in Nagaur district, holding that once a project stands completed and a valid Completion Certificate has been obtained, a refund cannot be granted. A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma upheld the Rajasthan RERA order, observing. "In such circumstances for well-being of real estate project integrity and stake holders' equity learned Regulatory Authority rightly rejected the claim of refund after post Completion of project"\
Case Title : Neelam Jain & Anr. v. ARG CG Developers LLP
Case Number : Appeal No. 9/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 14
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, (REAT) Jaipur, has affirmed the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order holding that a complaint filed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, was not maintainable after finding that the dispute over construction of a solar structure on an allotted rooftop involved civil rights that were already pending before a competent civil court.
The bench comprising Chairperson Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma dismissed the appeal filed by joint allottees Neelam Jain and Anand Kumar Jain against ARG CG Developers LLP, holding that the authority had rightly concluded that the complaint could not be entertained under the 2016 Act. “It is noted that point in issue regarding solar structure on allotted roof is directly and substantially involved in Civil Suit as well as in complaint. Whether appellant is entitled for construction on allotted roof, is related to his civil right and since the civil litigation is already pending before the competent Civil Court, therefore, learned Regulatory Authority rightly concluded that the matter does not fall under the RERA Act, 2016 and rightly dismissed the complaint”, the tribunal held.
Rajasthan REAT Upholds RERA Order Treating Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank As Promoter In Kota Project
Case Title Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number Appeal No. 308/2024 (arising out of Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2023-6115)
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 36
On 19 May, the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) upheld a Rajasthan RERA order treating Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma held that the bank stepped into the developer's role in the “Shreenath Oasis” project at Kota after acquiring an interest in the project through a mortgage. It held:
“it is admitted fact that the respondent-developer and the respondent-landowners have assigned their rights in the project by way of mortgage and executed mortgage-deed in favour of the respondent-bank”
Case Title Harish Jasuja v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr
Case Number Appeal No. 66/2022 and connected appeals
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 35
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has cautioned against attempts to claim exemption from project registration by relying on separate ownership of adjoining land parcels measuring less than 500 square meters.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma made the observation while dismissing eight connected appeals filed by promoter Harish Jasuja concerning the “City Trade Center” project in Sri Ganganagar.
Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, registration is generally not required where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight.
The tribunal observed:
“If we exempt such type of projects from registration then, two or more than two persons or a group of persons will purchase the parcel of land by separate sale-deeds of less than 500 square meters adjacent to each other and, therefore, after taking approval of competent authority in the independent capacity, they may design, construct or even offer for sale along with all type of common amenities with mutual understanding and claim for exemption to frustrate the very purpose of enactment of the RERA Act, 2016. Therefore, we may safely conclude that the project was designed, constructed and marketed as one single project and required to be registered under Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016.”
Rajasthan REAT Refuses To Condone 194-Day Delay, Says Rera Overrides General Limitation Principles
Case Title : R-Tech Capital Galleria Jaipur LLP v. Ravi Tara & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. 207/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 26
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone a 194-day delay by a developer in filing an appeal, holding that no “sufficient cause” was shown. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The tribunal observed that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is a “special law” that overrides “general law.” It said the Supreme Court's ruling in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013), which calls for a liberal approach in such applications, did not help the developer in the present case.
The Bench of Chairman Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma said allowing such delay, “and that too without any justifiable reason, would defeat the very purpose of the RERA Act, 2016, which has been framed to provide substantial justice to the allottees within a reasonable time.”
Gujarat REAT
Case Title : M/s Galaxy Mall Private Limited v. Bharat Nagjibhai Ramani & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. 110 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (GJ) 18
The Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has quashed an order of the Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), holding that even though the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is consumer-centric, the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint relating to a project phase that had obtained a completion certificate before the Act came into force on May 1, 2017.
The tribunal observed that although the provisions of the Act are meant to protect homebuyers, they cannot be applied to a phase of a project that stood completed before the law came into force. “It is no doubt true that the provisions of the RERA Act are 'consumer centric', however, as the completion certificate for Block 'H' was granted by the competent authority i.e. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation before the commencement of the Act, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to that phase of the real estate project,” the tribunal held.
Delhi–Chandigarh REAT
Case Title : M/s Omaxe Heritage Pvt. Ltd. v. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, New Delhi
Case Number : Appeal No. 195/REAT/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (DL) 14
The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for the NCT of Delhi and UT of Chandigarh recently held that suo-motu proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act cannot be initiated merely on the basis of an RTI query, particularly after a project has been completed and possession handed over.
A bench of Judicial Member Lorren Bamniyal observed, “while exercising the suo-moto powers vested in it under the statute, there is an element of caution to be exercised by the Authority, more especially in cases where the project has been completed and possession of the units has been handed over to the buyers. There is an inbuilt requirement of caution by way of a prior enquiry and / or investigation into elements / information which is forming the basis for initiation of the suo moto proceedings. This can also be done by seeking information from the Promoter by way of a formal letter initially instead of straightaway taking resort to the enabling powers under Section 35 and 37 of the Act. Suo-moto proceedings cannot solely be based on a mere complaint received by the Authority or an RTI query being filed before it, as is the case in the present appeal”
Case Title : Delhi Development Authority v. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, NCT of Delhi
Case Number : Appeal No. 190/REAT/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (DL) 5
Enforcing the 30-day deadline already prescribed under the RERA law, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for NCT of Delhi and UT of Chandigarh has held that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot keep project registration applications pending indefinitely. Setting aside a Rs 10 lakh penalty imposed on the Delhi Development Authority, the tribunal said the Authority must either approve or reject an application within that period. A bench led by Judicial Member Lorren Bamniyal said the statute leaves no room for administrative discretion on timelines. The tribunal said the law must be applied as written.
"The words of the statute are always to be treated sacrosanct as they represent the legislative intent. Their literal and plain meaning is not required to be interfered with unless the provision runs contrary to the statement of objects and reasons of the statute or is palpably in violation of any other law.", the Tribunal said.
West Bengal REAT
Carpet Area Means Net Usable Space, Cannot Be Diluted By Engineering Tolerance: WBREAT
Case Title: PS Group Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Ayush Tradelinks Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 2
Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 013/2025 and WBREAT/APPEAL No. 016/2025
The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) held that “carpet area” must strictly conform to the statutory definition of net usable floor area. It ruled that promoters cannot rely on tolerance clauses, plaster thickness, or engineering explanations to justify a shortfall in the promised area. A coram of Chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and Administrative Member
Dr. Subrat Mukherjee observed that “the intention of law maker was to protect the interest of consumers in real estate sector apart from allowing engineering tolerance, construction adjustments etc. which may be required in real estate project. So, the tolerance is allowed only in sanctioned plan, layout plan, fixtures and amenities which will primarily impact common facilities, structure and construction of building than the individual flat of consumers for which he has signed agreement and paid for allocated carpet area at unit cost".
Case Title: Forum Projects Private Limited & Ors. v. Chittaranjan Choudhury & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 1
Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 008/2025
The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld an interim order against real estate developer Forum Projects Private Limited. The order restrains the company from selling, transferring, or otherwise dealing with any part of its luxury residential project “Atmosphere” on Kolkata's EM Bypass. A bench of Chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and Administrative Member Dr. Subrat Mukherjee dismissed the developer's appeal. It held that “the interim directions passed by the learned Regulatory Authority are justified and it should not be interfered with at this stage.” It made it clear that contractual clauses could not override the law, observing that “the maxim 'there will be no estoppel against statute' neatly applies to the matter on hand.” The tribunal also clarified that proceedings under real estate law are independent of private arbitration disputes and that the regulator was well within its powers to step in and grant interim protection.
Madhya Pradesh REAT
Landowner In Joint Venture With Developer Not A Homebuyer Under RERA: Madhya Pradhesh REAT
Case Title: Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh
Case Number: Appeal No. 131/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 4
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) held that a landowner who enters into a joint venture with a developer for a real estate project cannot claim the status of an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and must instead be treated as a co-promoter. A bench of Chairman Justice V.P.S. Chauhan and Judicial Member P.C. Gupta said the RERA Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the dispute was not between a promoter and a homebuyer. The tribunal observed that “a co-promoter cannot be considered as an allottee, even if there is any condition for receiving consideration under the agreement.” Referring to the definition of “promoter” under the Act, it held that a person who contributes land and participates in the development assumes the role of a promoter. It further clarified that "If any dispute arises between the co-promoters in relation to the agreement dated 22/08/2012 or if there is any breach in regards to the joint venture agreement between the parties or promoters, they can take the recourse of civil suit or consumer redressal forum but the dispute would not come under the ambit and scope of the Act."
Case Title: Parth Developer v. Yogesh Mahajan & Anr.
Case Number: Appeal No. 32/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 3
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) held that an Enforcement Officer under the RERA law is not “the Authority” and therefore has no power to direct a developer to complete project amenities. The tribunal ruled that any such order is without jurisdiction and has no force in law. The bench, comprising Chairman Justice V.P.S. Chauhan and Judicial Member P.C. Gupta, while dealing with an appeal filed by Parth Developer against a 2022 order of a RERA Enforcement Officer, observed that “Enforcement Officer is not an Authority,” and added that “if any order passed by the Enforcement Officer, who is not having a jurisdiction to pass that order, the order can be categorized as coram non judice having no force and it is nonest."
Karnataka REAT
Market Value Rise, Hypothetical Future Profits Not Enough For RERA Compensation: Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Ravi Shankar & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 125/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 34
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) has dismissed an appeal by two Bengaluru homebuyers seeking enhanced compensation over delayed possession of flats in Vaishnavi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.'s “Vaishnavi Mandara” project, upholding a Karnataka RERA order that awarded them ₹2 lakh for mental agony and ₹7,000 in litigation costs.
The tribunal bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N said compensation claims under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act must be supported by cogent evidence.
“Mere escalation in market value, generalised hardship or hypothetical future profits ordinarily may not, by themselves constitute a valid claim for compensation towards loss of opportunity under the Act.”
Case Title : Sobha Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT)-52 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 22
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that a builder (promoter) cannot escape liability to refund amounts paid by homebuyers with interest for failing to deliver a flat with a clear and marketable title by blaming the landowner or citing pending title disputes. A bench of Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N and Administrative Member Mahendra Jain said, “The Promoter cannot absolve himself from the responsibility of paying delay compensation to the Allottee solely on the ground that the landowner is liable to pay the compensation arising due to title issues under the framework of RERA Act.”
It further held, “It is the responsibility of the Promoter to ensure that he has legal title to the land along with legally valid documents with authentication of such title, if such land is owned by another person, namely the landlord who may be different from the Promoter. It is also his responsibility to ensure that land is free from all encumbrances including any rights, title, interest or name of any party in or over such land along with details.”
Case Title : Vankadari Aniruddha Vaishnav & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 46 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 15
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that commercial hardship or difficulty in obtaining approvals does not amount to frustration of contract, setting aside a RERA order and ruling that Italix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltd. could not change a residential project to commercial use after dismantling the structure during pending complaints. A coram of Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N and Administrative Member Mahendra Jain found that Italix Living Spaces had acted with mala fide intent by demolishing a partially constructed structure while complaints were still pending, and directed refund of Rs 5 lakh with interest along with Rs 2.5 lakh as consolidated compensation for the loss and mental agony suffered by the allottees. “Mere commercial hardship, inconvenience, or difficulty in obtaining regulatory approvals does not amount to frustration of contract. The doctrine cannot be invoked merely because performance has become onerous or less profitable. Therefore, Promoter cannot alter the nature of the project from residential to commercial use on the pretext of non-availability of TDR, nor can such difficulty be invoked to deny relief to the Allottees”, it held.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Rajasthan RERA
Case Title : Anuj Singh v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP & Sapna Singh (Deceased) through Legal Heirs v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP
Case Number : RAJ-RERA-C-N-2024-7720 & RAJ-RERA-C-N-2024-7731
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 71
Holding that resort villas sold by Keemaya Resorts under a Perpetual Lease Aggregation Agreement (sale-and-leaseback model) are part of a “real estate project” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ruled that such projects must be registered and that buyers qualify as “allottees.”
A coram of Member Sudhir Kumar Sharma observed, “All these documents whether it is brochure of the project or sale deed and PLAA executed in favour of another person 'X', clearly proves that the project was envisaged as Real Estate Project, the Respondent is a Promoter, who sold or booked the Villas for purpose of selling and then taking back management to Resort Management Company through lease,. Every persons who booked the Villa is / was an allottee.”
Case Title : Suo Moto v. GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : F.3(151)RJ/RERA/P/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 32
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently restrained Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. from initiating or continuing recovery proceedings against homebuyers who acquired their flats before the Avalon Royal Park project was mortgaged.
The authority refused to declare the mortgage deed dated February 14, 2018 as void. It held that adjudication on the legality or validity of a registered mortgage falls outside its jurisdiction.
However, Chairperson Veenu Gupta observed that statutory protections under the RERA Act cannot be ignored. “This Authority cannot be a mute spectator where the statutory rights of allottees, expressly protected under the RERA Act, are threatened,” the order said.
It directed that the secured creditor “shall not initiate or continue any coercive action, recovery proceedings, or enforcement of security interest” against allottees who acquired rights prior to 14.02.2018.
Rajasthan RERA Orders Forensic Audit Of Avalon Royal Park Project, Says IBC Moratorium Not A Bar
Case Title : Avalon Royal Park Homebuyers' Association v. GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : (151) RJ/RERA/C/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 110
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has ordered a forensic audit of the Avalon Royal Park housing project in Bhiwadi after finding significant inconsistencies in the developer's financial disclosures.
It also noted a substantial gap between the expenditure claimed and the physical progress achieved at the project.
Chairperson Veenu Gupta held that the audit could proceed despite insolvency proceedings against the developer. The authority ruled that the exercise would be investigative and fact-finding in nature. It would not interfere with the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or violate the moratorium in force under insolvency law.
The authority ruled, "At this stage, the proposed forensic audit is merely intended to facilitate independent verification of project accounts and examination of compliance with statutory obligations under the Act, 2016 and to provide foundational material for any further action, if warranted, in accordance with law. The same is essentially investigative and fact finding in nature and does not, by itself, interfere with the powers exercised by the RP under the IBC.”
Telangana RERA
Telangana RERA Holds Sale Agreements Disguised As “Investment Agreements” Cannot Bypass Section 3
Case Title : Narasimhula Upendra v. M/s R Homes & Ors. connected matters
Case Number: Complaint Nos. 177/2025/TGRERA along with connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 87
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 16 May held that developers cannot evade the mandatory registration requirement under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by disguising apartment sale transactions as “investment agreements”.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao directed R Homes, Hyderabad, to refund Rs. 2.43 crore collected from homebuyers in relation to its “Jai Vasavis Bliss Heights” project at Yamnampet Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, along with interest at 10.70% per annum. The Bench observed:
“this Authority deprecates the conduct of the Respondent No.1 in adopting a circuitous and impermissible method by styling the transactions as 'Agreements for Investment' with a view to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Such an artifice is a colourable exercise designed to defeat the object and scheme of the statute.”
Telangana RERA Says Buyers Who Paid For Beccun Flats Are Allottees Even Without Sale Agreement
Case Title: Prasenjith Kambde & Ors. v. M/s Beccun Infrastructure Limited
Case Number: Complaint Nos. 261–272/2025/TG RERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 77
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that buyers in the delayed “Beccun Life Style” project in Kompally, Hyderabad cannot be denied the status of allottees merely because formal agreements for sale were not executed, where they had paid substantial amounts and were allotted flats.
Rejecting objections raised by Beccun Infrastructure Limited, the Authority held that such buyers are entitled to be treated as allottees and can maintain complaints before it.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu said:
"The Respondent, however, has sought to contend that in the absence of duly executed Agreements of Sale signed by both parties, the Complainants cannot be treated as allottees. This contention cannot be accepted. The issuance of receipts, acknowledgment of payments, and allotment of specific units clearly establish the existence of a transaction and the intention to transfer such units in favour of the Complainants.", it said.
Aditya Capitol Heights Builder Cannot Retroactively Deny Pre-EMI Benefit: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Anuradha Konapala & Anr. v. M/s Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 73 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 79
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. cannot deny homebuyers in its Aditya Capitol Heights project the benefit of a Pre-EMI scheme after incorporating it into the sale agreement and acting on it by making payments.
“Having accepted the Complainants under the scheme, executed the Agreement of Sale incorporating its terms, and made actual Pre-EMI payments thereunder, the Respondent is estopped from now asserting that the Complainants were never eligible for the scheme. The plea of retrospective disqualification raised by the Respondent is accordingly rejected as contrary to law and inconsistent with the Respondent's own conduct.”, the authority held.
Case Title : M. Srinivasa Rao vs. M/s Sohini Builders LLP & Another
Case Number : Complaint No. 280 of 2024/TG RERA and connected matter
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 67
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on April 6, 2026 ordered suo motu proceedings against Sohini Builders LLP over allegations that it included privately owned plots in a registered project without consent, even as it dismissed complaints filed by two plot owners as not maintainable. At the heart of the ruling was the nature of the relationship. The Authority found that the complainants were not “allottees” under the Act and had no direct transactional link with the promoter, which is essential to invoke the complaint mechanism.
The Authority clarified that dismissal of the complaints would not affect its regulatory powers, stating: “However, this conclusion does not denude the Authority of its regulatory jurisdiction. The material placed on record and the nature of allegations brought forth by the Complainants disclose issues of potential non-compliance with the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and the TG RE(R&D) Rules,2017 framed thereunder, which warrant independent examination in the larger public interest and in furtherance of the objectives of the RE(R&D) Act.”
Case Title : Ch. Venkateswara Rao v. M/s Green Space Properties & Ors.
Case Number : 582/2025/TGRERA CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 33
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has recently imposed a penalty of over Rs 22 lakh on Green Space Properties for advertising and executing sale transactions in its “Green Space Indra Nagar” project without obtaining mandatory registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. “The language of Section 3(1) is prohibitory and mandatory. Registration of the real estate project is a condition precedent to any act of advertisement, marketing, booking, sale or offer for sale,” the authority observed.
RERA Does Not Prescribe Mandatory Or Uniform Format For Sale Deed: Telengana RERA
Case Title : Ravi Kumar Anchoori v. M/s Candeur Developers & Builders
Case Number : Complaint No. 277 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 50
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG-RERA) has dismissed a complaint seeking interest on Rs 62.5 lakh refunded by a developer, holding that an allottee cannot insist on a particular drafting format of a sale deed in the absence of a statutory mandate under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Clarifying the position, the Authority held, "At the outset, this Authority finds it necessary to observe that neither the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 nor the Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 prescribe any mandatory or uniform format for a Sale Deed. The statutory framework under RERA provides a model format only for the Agreement for Sale, with the object of ensuring transparency at the pre-conveyance stage. The Sale Deed, being an instrument of conveyance, is governed primarily by the applicable laws, and the contractual understanding between the parties. Therefore, the contents and structure of the Sale Deed necessarily flow from the terms agreed between the parties, subject to compliance with general registration requirements and in accord with RE(R&D) Act provisions, and an allottee cannot insist upon incorporation of matters which are not statutorily mandated."
Telengana RERA Penalises Ramanuja Temple County ₹32.12 Lakh For Selling Unregistered Project
Case Title: Venkata Krishna Moorthy Kavaturu v. M/s Ramanuja Temple County Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 256/2025/TG RERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 23
Relying on findings recorded in an earlier adjudication that the developer's conduct was not an isolated lapse but a “continuing modus operandi” undermining transparency and consumer protection, the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs 32.12 lakh on Ramanuja Temple County Pvt. Ltd. for advertising, marketing, and selling units without registering its project.
In a February 3, 2026, penalty order, a coram comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS, and Members K. Srinivasa Rao, Laxmi Narayana Jannu held the developer liable after earlier finding that it had sold units in an unregistered project. The finding was recorded in an adjudication order dated November 3, 2025, relating to a project at Saidapur village near Yadagirigutta.
While examining the complaint, the Authority noted that the developer had collected substantial amounts and had initially made monthly payments under a rental guarantee scheme, even though the project was never registered with the regulator.
Having already held in its earlier order that such conduct amounted to a “clear and willful contravention” of Section 3(1) of the Act, the Authority, in its February 3, 2026 order, exercised its powers under Section 38 and directed the developer to deposit a penalty of Rs 32,12,580 with the TGRERA Fund within 30 days.
Case Title : The RVE Social Welfare Association vs. K Raheja Corp Real Estate Pvt Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 122 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 28
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has recently directed K Raheja Corp Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. to reconcile and transfer corpus and maintenance funds to the registered maintenance society of the Raheja Vistas project in Hyderabad, complete pending safety infrastructure, and hand over key project documents.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu.
The Authority held that phase-wise RERA registration is permissible where a project is genuinely approved and executed in phases, and declined the request to treat the entire development as a single registration.
Builder Cannot Impose Previous Allottees's Late Payment Charges On Subsequent Buyer: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Aparna Nuna & Anr. v. M/s Pacifica Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : 296/2025/TGRERA & 297/2025/TGRERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 31
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently directed Pacifica Construction Pvt. Ltd. to remove late payment charges linked to previous allottees before registering two flats. It held that buyers cannot be made liable for penalties that do not arise from their own defaults.
A coram of Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu, observed that “liability for late payment charges must necessarily flow either from a contractual obligation expressly undertaken by an allottee or from defaults attributable to that allottee's own conduct.”The Authority upheld the revised maintenance charge of Rs 3.6 per sq. ft., noting escalation in costs over time. However, it directed the developer to convene a General Meeting of the Association of Allottees within 30 days to determine future maintenance charges collectively.
It clarified that claims for compensation fall within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the Act. GST-related disputes must be raised before the competent GST authorities.
Homebuyers Complete Stalled Hyderabad Housing Project After TG RERA Revokes Developer's Registration
Case Title : Sri Abhishek Singh & Ors. v. M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 1269 of 2023 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 18
Homebuyers of a stalled Hyderabad housing project have completed construction after the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) stepped in, revoked the developer's registration, and enabled the residents' association to take over the project under the RERA law. Recording the completion of the “Jaya Platinum” project at Bowrampet, TG RERA held that revocation of registration “does not leave the allottees remediless.” It said regulatory intervention had become inevitable to protect the collective interests of homebuyers. The order was passed by a bench comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), and members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao.TG RERA also passed directions against the developer, asking it to execute and register conveyance deeds in favour of the homebuyers for those units that had earlier been mortgaged.
Telangana RERA Condemns Practice Of Developers Changing Possession Dates After Booking
Case Title : Mrs. Rizvana Begum & Anr. v. M/s Pacifica Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMPLAINT NO. 58/2025/TGRERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (19)
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has come down hard on the practice of developers changing possession dates after buyers have already paid substantial amounts. Calling such agreements “ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable,” the Authority said homebuyers are often left with no real choice but to accept altered timelines inserted later in sale agreements. A bench led by Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, with members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu, said this imbalance of power is precisely what the real estate law was meant to address. “When an allottee has already paid a substantial portion of the consideration at the stage of booking or allotment, the allottee is left with no real choice but to accept the new possession timeline inserted in the agreement for sales. Such agreements are ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable, and this Authority condemns such practices. It is precisely to curb such asymmetry of power, lack of transparency, and exploitation of consumers that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was enacted." it said.
Case Title Vijay Kumar Pasumarti vs SVS Square Spaces LLP
Case Number Complaint No. 57 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 93
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), on 5 May, directed SVS Square Spaces to carry out comprehensive waterproofing works and permanently rectify seepage and leakage issues in a homebuyer's flat, holding that the defects arose from defective workmanship in the terrace flooring and inadequate waterproofing.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana with Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao allowed the complaint and held the promoter responsible for rectification of the defects. The Bench held:
“that the water leakages stemming from the terrace into the below floor constitute a clear instance of defective workmanship of the terrace flooring and an inadequate waterproofing course”
Telangana RERA Fines Indo Qatar Projects ₹38.63 Lakh For Marketing Unregistered Projects
Case Title : In Re: M/s Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Suo Motu Case No. D6/939/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 111
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has directed Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd. to pay a consolidated penalty of ₹38.63 lakh. The authority found that the company advertised and marketed multiple unregistered real estate projects. It also facilitated the sale of one project without obtaining registration as a real estate agent.
A coram of Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao observed that registration is a mandatory pre-condition before a promoter undertakes any commercial or promotional activity relating to a real estate project.
It observed, "The legislative mandate is explicit, no promoter is authorised to advertise, promote, solicit bookings, sell, or offer for sale any plot, apartment, or building within a real estate project, or any portion thereof, situated in a designated planning area, unless the project has been registered with the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, imposes a non-derogable obligation on promoters, making registration a precondition for carrying out any commercial transactions or promotional activities in respect of a project."
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title: Heet Builders Private Limited v. Mrs. Bhharati Kondaji Kanade
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000396625
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 86
he Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held that a homebuyer who objected to the placement of a lavatory in a flat on Vastu-Shastra grounds could not avoid payment obligations under the agreement for sale.
MahaRERA member Ravindra Deshpande was dealing with a complaint filed by Heet Builders Pvt Ltd seeking a declaration that its termination of an agreement for sale executed with homebuyer Bhharati Kondaji Kanade was valid on account of non-payment of the balance consideration amount.
“If the respondent is genuinely aggrieved by the layout of the flat or any facilities attached thereto, she is always at liberty to institute a separate complaint before this Authority in accordance with RERA Act 2016,Such a course of action would ensure that the grievance is examined independently within the statutory framework without conflicting it with the present proceedings which are confined to the issues arising out of the complainant's claim,” the Authority observed.
Provisional Flat Allotment Given As Loan Security Does Not Create Allottee Rights: Maharashtra RERA
Case Title : Naresh Moturam Bhojwani v. Shree Tirupati Greenfield
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000591428
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 84
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held in a case that a provisional flat allotment issued merely as security for a loan did not conclusively establish a promoter-allottee relationship while dismissing a complaint by a man seeking a refund or possession of a flat in Shree Tirupati Greenfield's “Siddheshwar Gardens” project.
Member Ravindra Deshpande said the Provisional Reservation Letter relied upon by complainant Naresh Moturam Bhojwani had to be read in its entirety.
“Once a party signs and accepts a document, such party is presumed to have read, understood and accepted all the terms and conditions contained therein. The Complainant cannot selectively rely only upon those recitals which support allotment of the flat while ignoring the specific recital contained in Clause 6(3) regarding the transaction being security against loan.”, the authority observed.
MahaRERA Directs Piramal Estate To Waive 50% Interest & GST On Homebuyer For Delayed Instalment
Case Title : Tushar Dnyandeo Jagdale Versus Piramal Estate Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12502588
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 44
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 23 February directed Piramal Estate to waive 50% of the interest and GST levied on a homebuyer for delayed payment of an instalment in its Thane project.
A Bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member-I) observed that the delay could not be attributed solely to the homebuyer, as issuance of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the builder also contributed to the delay in loan disbursement. The Bench noted:
“In view of these facts and circumstances, MahaRERA is of the considered view that the levy of the entire interest and GST by the respondent for the period from 06-05-2025 to 04-06-2025 is not fully justified".
Case Title : Elkan Saphania Moses Versus Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000198193
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 51
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently rejected a complaint filed by a homebuyer seeking a refund of Rs 76.28 lakh allegedly forfeited by Piramal Estates after cancellation of a flat booking, holding that once a registered cancellation deed was executed and the refund was accepted, the transaction could not be reopened.
Member Ravindra Deshpande observed that the complainant had accepted the refund in November 2019 and raised the dispute only later.
“The Complainant, after accepting the refund amount in November 2019, has sought to raise the present dispute only subsequently by issuing a legal notice and filing the complaint, which appears to be an afterthought,” the authority said.
Case Title : Rajkumar Through Legal Heirs Yogesh Agrawal and Ors. Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd and Another
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12501926 and Another
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 46
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held Sahara Prime City Ltd liable for a delay of over a decade in handing over possession of flats in its Nagpur project. The authority directed the developer to refund Rs 33.84 lakh and Rs 20.87 lakh paid by two homebuyers along with interest.
A bench comprising Mahesh Pathak observed: “In these circumstances, MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the homebuyers.Hence, the complainants are entitled to seek refund of the amounts paid along with applicable interest, irrespective of the fact that no specific date of possession is mentioned in the booking form executed by the complainant at Sr. No. 1."
Case Title Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Vijay Veer; Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Pankaj Choudhary & Anr.
Case Number Complaint No. CC006000000354480 and Complaint No. CC006000000480190
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 94
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held that repeated and prolonged payment defaults by homebuyers are contrary to their contractual and statutory obligations.
It observed that such defaults adversely affect project execution, financial planning, and a promoter's obligations towards other stakeholders and financial institutions.
Member Ravindra Deshpande made the observation while allowing two complaints filed by Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. The Authority directed Santosh Vijay Veer and Pankaj Choudhary and Jyoti Choudhary to pay outstanding sale consideration of ₹37.57 lakh and ₹1.25 crore respectively, together with interest at SBI's highest MCLR plus 2%.
The authority observed:
"The provisions of Section 19(6) of the said Act cast a statutory obligation upon every allottee to make necessary payments in the manner and within the time stipulated under the Agreement for Sale. The repeated and prolonged defaults committed by the Respondents are therefore contrary not only to the contractual obligations undertaken by them but also to the statutory framework governing real estate transactions under the said Act."
"The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has consistently held that while the provisions of the said Act are intended to protect the interests of allottees, the same equally require adherence to financial discipline and reciprocal contractual obligations by the allottees. Persistent payment defaults by allottees adversely affect project execution, financial planning and obligations of the promoter towards other stakeholders and financial institutions. In the present case, there is no material placed on record to establish any delay attributable to the Complainant promoter as the contractual possession date itself is 30.04.2027 and the project is stated to be substantially completed.", it added.
MahaRERA Holds Common Facility Disputes Must Be Pursued Through Society, Rejects Individual Claims
Case Title: Vinod Parasharam Atpadkar & Ors. v. Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complaint No. CC12503139
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 106
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 11 June, held that individual allottees cannot pursue disputes relating to common amenities, maintenance charges and collective facilities once a co-operative housing society is formed, and must raise such issues through the society under Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Mahesh Pathak dismissed a complaint filed by 19 allottees of Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.'s “Marathon Nexzone Zenith-2” project, holding that the dispute became not maintainable once the society came into existence and possession had already been handed over. He observed:
“Once the society is formed, issues relating to common amenities, common facilities, common charges and the collective rights of allottees are required to be raised through the society as the said society is entitled to seek possession of such common areas as per the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.”
Case Title : Jithin Philip Mathews & Anr. v. Tycoons Avanti Projects LLP
Case Number: CC006000000591406
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 107
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 15 June 2026 held that the completion or extension dates reflected on the RERA web portal cannot override the specific possession date agreed between a developer and a homebuyer under a registered agreement for sale.
A Bench comprising Member Ravindra Deshpande disposed of two complaints relating to the “Tycoons Square Avenue I Tower C” project. It directed Tycoons Avanti Projects LLP to refund Rs 58.51 lakh with interest to homebuyers Jithin Philip Mathews and Mathews Mathai for failing to hand over possession on time.
In the connected complaint, the Authority also directed the developer to hand over possession of a commercial unit to purchaser Gobind Rajani along with delayed-possession interest. The Bench observed:
“Considering the said observation, this Authority is of the view that the date of completion of the said project mentioned on the MahaRERA website is distinct from the date of possession mentioned in the said Agreements signed with the Complainant and as per the terms of the said Agreement, possession of the said flat was to be handed over to the Complainant on 30.03.2023, which the Respondent has failed to comply, which fact entitles the Complainants to the costs of the present complaint. In light of the aforesaid, in my opinion, the Complainants are entitled to withdraw from the said project and seek refund of the amount paid towards the sale consideration only.”
Case Title: Prajesh Chandra Mohan & Anr. v. Neelkamal Realtors Tower Private Limited & Ors. and Naina Chandra Mohan v. Neelkamal Realtors Tower Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CC006000000196769 and CC006000000196770
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 103
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that purchasers of two flats in the "Godrej Avenue Eleven – Tower B" project were entitled to be treated as allottees and claim interest for delayed possession, even though no agreement for sale had been executed in their favor.
Member Ravindra Deshpande held that the erstwhile promoter, co-promoter, and successor promoter were jointly and severally liable for obligations arising from the project.
"The continuous acknowledgment of the complainants' booking, acceptance of substantial consideration, and identification of specific flats in favour of the complainants sufficiently establish the jural relationship of promoter and allottee under section 2(d) of the Act. In the circumstances, both captioned complainants are held to fall within the definition of 'allottee' under the provisions of the Act," authority observed.
Case Title: Alok Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Intofinity Promoters Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 16
Case Number: Complaint No. CC12502984
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) held that collective grievances affecting a real estate project must be pursued by a homeowners' association or with the backing of a majority of allottees, and not by a few individuals acting in their personal capacity. Dismissing a complaint filed by five homebuyers of the 'Kohinoor Kaleido – Phase 1' project in Pune, a bench comprising Member Mahesh Pathak held that “In the absence of such authorization, issues of a collective nature cannot be adjudicated in a complaint filed by a few allottees in their individual capacity.” MahaRERA siding with the developer, held that the reliefs sought related to matters affecting all allottees and, in certain respects, the project as a whole.
The homebuyers, it noted, had failed to show that they were authorised by a majority of allottees or by any registered association. On that limited ground, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint without examining the merits of the allegations. It granted liberty to the homebuyers to file a fresh complaint limited to their individual grievances or to approach the Authority through a duly constituted association of allottees for collective issues.
MahaRERA Declines To Rule On Whether Puzzle Parking Is A Common Area
Case Title: Yuvraj Kisan Chaudhari & Ors. v. Neelkanth Palm Realty & Anr.
Case Number: Complaint No. CC006000000196705
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 8
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a complaint by homebuyers of a Thane housing project seeking a ruling on whether puzzle parking qualifies as a common area under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, holding that it has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. “No provisions of the said Act provide this Authority with jurisdiction to decide a particular amenity as common or not. In the absence of the jurisdiction, this Authority restrains itself from passing any order in this behalf.,” the authority said in an order dated January 5, 2026. On examining the definition of “common areas” under Section 2(n) of the Act, the authority observed that the provision expressly refers to basements and open parking spaces. However, it noted that the Act does not address mechanical parking systems such as puzzle parking.
'Blatant Disregard Of Law': MahaRERA Penalises Keyana Estate Over Delay In Mumbai Project
Case Title : Latha Jayesh Chaudhary & Anr. v. Keyana Estate LLP
Case Number : Complaint Numbers: CC12400582 and CC12400583
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 24
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakh on developer Keyana Estate LLP for delaying possession of flats in its Kalpataru Radiance D project in Mumbai and for raising technical objections to the maintainability of homebuyers' complaints. The Authority, led by Chairperson Manoj Saunik, held the developer liable under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and criticised it for exhibiting what it described as a “blatant disregard to the law and fair business practices".
Emphasising that the provision governing delayed possession is absolute, the Authority observed that “such acts if condoned on grounds of legal technicalities will defeat the noble objective of this beneficial legislation”.
Karnataka RERA
Karnataka RERA Orders BDA To Refund ₹11.46 Lakh Collected Despite Full Payment Before Cut-Off Date
Case Title : N R Bhadrachalam v. Bangalore Development Authority
Case Number : Complaint No. 00619/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 76
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed the Bangalore Development Authority to refund Rs.11.46 lakh collected from a homebuyer, holding that the amount could not have been demanded once the entire sale consideration had already been paid before the government's cut-off date.
“When the complainant had deposited an entire sale consideration on 28.10.2021 itself much prior to cut-off date 30.11.2021, the respondent could not have demanded/insisted the complainant to pay the said amount of Rs.11,46,267/- (Eleven Lakh Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven only). Hence, the complainant is entitled to get refund of said amount along with interest.”
Karnataka RERA Directs Mantri Developers To Register Flat, Grant Homebuyer Possession Within 60 Days
Case Title: Rita Kantilal Ruparelia v. Mantri Developers Private Limited
Case Number: Complaint No. 001244/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KR) 89
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on May 5 directed Mantri Developers to execute the registered sale deed in favour of a homebuyer and hand over possession of a flat in accordance with the Agreement for Sale.
A Bench comprising Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy allowed the complaint and held that the developer must complete registration and conveyance without further delay. It observed:
“The purport and object of RERA Act is to develop and promote Real Estate Sector and at the same time to safe guard the interest of purchasers. The Act gives protection to homebuyer and enhanced transparency and Accountability in Real Estate transactions.”
Case Title : Arpan Sarkar & Anr. v. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 00754/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 61
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has recently held that Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd. made an attempt to change the location of a promised clubhouse without the consent of homebuyers and was liable for delay in handing over possession, directing it to pay interest to Arpan Sarkar and Priya Sarkar. Chairman Rakesh Singh observed, “The Respondent in this case has made an attempt to change the location of the clubhouse without the consent of allottees. There are dispute as to the location of the clubhouse. The BBMP plan indicates that the clubhouse is in the south east corner of the project. However, the proposed clubhouse site is allegedly situated on BDA land that was encroached upon by the builder or land owner. It is also reported in the spot inspection dated 08.08.2025.”
Case Title : Promont Residents Welfare Association v. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number : Complaint No. 00972/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 60
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dismissed a complaint by the Promont Residents Welfare Association against Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. and The Promont Hilltop Private Limited, holding that it did not have jurisdiction as the project did not fall within the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. A Bench of Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy recorded that the developers had applied for partial occupancy certificates on May 19, 2016 and June 20, 2017 before the enactment of RERA. It held that the applicability of RERA depends on the date of such application, not on when the certificate is issued.
“So, upon completion of the tower 1 and 2, the respondents have applied occupancy certificate prior to enactment of RERA. Irrespective of when the occupancy certificate was issued, the eligibility for obtaining occupancy certificate has to be reckoned from the date of application itself. From that point of view, the provision of RERA doesn't attract to the case on hand. Therefore, even though the occupancy certificate was issued subsequent to enactment of RERA, the case falls within the exemption provided under the Act. Hence, the present complaint would not be maintainable in any stretch of imagination before the Authority,” the bench said.
Case Title : Bitragunta Venkata Kalyana Chakravarthy and Others vs. Sobha Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 01708/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 69
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that it cannot adjudicate disputes over the validity of a co-operative society formed by homebuyers, clarifying that such issues fall within the jurisdiction of authorities under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The co-operative society formed by some homebuyers of a Shobha HRC Project was intended to function as the residents' association, taking over management of the project and receiving transfer of common areas, funds, and records from the developer.
“This Authority, being a regulatory authority under the RERA Act, cannot adjudicate inter se disputes relating to validity or legality of registration of a society under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which falls within the domain of the competent authority under the said Act. Where promoter has already complied with KAOA mechanism, prima facie compliance of Section 11(4)(e}) is established," the authority observed.
Case Title : Gourav Gupta & Anr. vs Mantri Developers Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 01047/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 66
Holding that there was “clear and continued non-compliance” with its binding directions, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) recently imposed a penalty of up to 5% of the estimated project cost on Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. for failing to comply with its earlier order in favour of homebuyers. A coram comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy further directed the Managing Director and concerned Directors of the company to appear before it and show cause within 30 days as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them for continued non-compliance.
“It is, therefore, crystal clear that the persons who are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Respondent-company do not attach any value to the letter and spirit of the law. ,” the authority observed.
Case Title: Mohammed Iqbal Khan v. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No. 01440/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 75
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has held that a developer cannot raise construction-linked payment demands without substantiating the stage-wise progress with architect or engineer certificates, faulting Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt Ltd for issuing premature demand letters without any such proof.
Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath found that the developer had failed to produce “a single iota of evidence” to show that the payment demands were backed by certified construction progress, making it “difficult to know the exact stage wise progress of the project.”
Karnataka RERA Orders Surya Homes, Bagpack Suites To Pay ₹12 Lakh Annual Rent Loss To Homebuyer
Case Title : Subhash Dekhne v. Surya Homes & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 00014/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 72
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has recently directed Surya Homes and its hospitality partner Bagpack Suites Bangalore Private Limited to pay Rs 12 lakh per annum towards loss of rent and Rs 2 lakh towards mental agony to homebuyer Subhash Dhekne for failing to hand over physical possession of a flat despite executing the sale deed. The Authority held that mere execution of a sale deed does not complete a promoter's obligations in the absence of actual handover of possession, observing that compensation can only partially address the distress suffered by a homebuyer.
Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath observed, “It is also to be noted that mental agony being intangible aspect no one other than the aggrieved can put it in words of mouth and no quantum of money could be said to be sufficient to heal the injury caused to the mind. At the most it could be akin to applying a cooling balm on the burns. Therefore, it is quite necessary for this forum to step into the shoes of the aggrieved as practicable as possible to determine the amount of compensation that could be proportionate to the mental agony and financial loss undergone by the complainant. That might have compelled him to spend many sleepless nights. The struggle they had made to mobilize funds for legal battle to recover the money they had invested with such great hope.”
Case Title : Mridula Krishnapur v. Bangalore Development Authority
Case Number : Complaint No.01380/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 68
Warning that delays by developers can shatter homebuyers' lifelong investment-backed aspirations, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to pay Rs 56.03 lakh as interest compensation to a homebuyer for delay in providing basic amenities in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout (NPKL) project in Bengaluru.
Holding that mere execution of a sale deed or handing over possession without basic infrastructure does not amount to a valid handover, a coram of Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy observed, “To have a cosy house is everyone's dream. To fulfil that dream, one could take the risk of investing all lifetime savings and raising loans in terms of lakhs or crores, which could take the rest of life to repay. That being so, (if) the developer resorts to using the hard-earned money of investors in a reckless manner, it would not only shatter the dreams of investors, but also make them run from pillar to post by incurring heavy investment as well as legal expenses. Though the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration of the site to the respondent in the year 2020 itself, she is deprived of use and enjoyment of her site."
Case Title : Shakeel K Moideenkutty Versus Ozone Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number : CMP/246/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 37
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a developer in this case could not deduct 20 percent of the amount paid by a homebuyer after failing to deliver possession within the agreed timeline. A coram of Member G.R. Reddy directed Ozone Developers Pvt Ltd and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt Ltd to refund about 1.10 crore rupees to a homebuyer who had booked an apartment in the project “Urbana Pavilion” in Bengaluru The Authority observed, “It is undisputed fact that the respondents failed to handover possession of the flat to the complainant as per the timeline prescribed in the agreement of sale.”
Sohan Realty Cannot Deny Homebuyer Rights Over Payments to Previous Developer: Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru v. Manyam Estates Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 00202/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 108
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has directed Sohan Realty, which took over the Bengaluru residential project now known as Sohan Skypark, to recognise homebuyer Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru as the lawful allottee of Flat No. B-302.
It also directed the developer to grant her access and possession of the apartment.
The order was passed by Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy.
“Section 19(1) of the Act confers upon every allottee the right to possession and peaceful enjoyment of the apartment, while Section 11(4)(a) mandates the promoter to honour obligations arising from agreements and representations. Once M/s Sohan Realty has stepped in as promoter under Section 8, it cannot refuse access nor shift responsibility onto the outgoing promoter,” the Authority observed.
Promoter Holds Homebuyers' Funds In Trust, Cannot Retain Common Assets After Handover: K-RERA
Case Title: Yoganandan Jagannathan v. Smart Value Homes (Peenya Project) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Complaint No. 00002/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 109
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) on 3 June held that a promoter holds money collected from homebuyers in trust and cannot use it for construction activities or personal purposes and that a promoter's obligation to transfer common areas, project assets and funds to the association of allottees continues even after handing over possession.
Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy directed Smart Value Homes Private Limited and Tata Value Homes Limited to restore DG-set backup power supply to Jagannathan's apartment, complete the promised amenities, and transfer key project assets, funds and utility infrastructure of the "New Haven Bengaluru Phase 1" project to the authorised association of allottees. The Authority observed:
“The collected funds are held by the promoter in trust. The Promoter cannot utilize this money for construction or personal use. The obligation to transfer common areas and sinking funds is a continuance cause of action.”
Karnataka RERA Orders Penalty Proceedings Against Maxworth Realty Over Unregistered Project
Case Title Lakshmi V. Reddy versus M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd.
Case Number Complaint No: 00915 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 92
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has ordered initiation of penalty proceedings against Maxworth Realty India Ltd for failing to register its project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, while also directing the developer to hand over possession of a plot booked by a homebuyer more than a decade ago.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy held that the developer could not continue retaining the buyer's money without either completing the transaction or returning the amount.
"The respondent cannot be permitted to unjustly enrich itself by retaining the complainant's money indefinitely without either executing conveyance or refunding the amount," the Authority observed.
Karnataka RERA Orders Frontier Shelters To Pay ₹21.63 Lakh Interest For Delay In Flat Possession
Case Title : Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Versus Frontier Shelters Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Complaint No. 01208/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 97
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently directed Frontier Shelters Pvt. Ltd. to pay ₹21.63 lakh as interest for delaying possession of a flat in its Frontier Heights project in Bengaluru, while also ordering the developer to complete the project and hand over the apartment to the buyer.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy. Relying on a site inspection report, the authority found that several crucial works and promised amenities were still unfinished. It noted that the project was not in a condition where possession could be handed over and that an Occupancy Certificate could not be issued.
Circular : K-RERA To Levy Penalties On Builders For Non-Submission Of Annual Audit Reports For FY 2024–25
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has issued a circular mandating the imposition of annual penalties on promoters who have failed to submit their annual audit reports for their housing projects for the Financial Year 2024–2025. Referring to its powers under Sections 38(1) and 60 of the Act, the Authority said that promoters who failed to meet the December 31, 2025 deadline would be liable to penalties.
The penalty will apply for every financial year of default and will depend on the project's total estimated cost. Under the penalty schedule set out in the circular, projects with an estimated cost of less than Rs. 25 crore will attract a penalty of Rs. 20,000. Projects with an estimated cost above Rs. 25 crore and up to Rs. 50 crore will be fined Rs. 25,000. For projects above Rs. 50 crore and up to Rs. 100 crore, the penalty is Rs. 50,000. Projects with an estimated cost exceeding Rs. 100 crore will be liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The Authority stated that promoters must submit the pending audit report for FY 2024–25 and pay the applicable penalty through the RERA e-payment system, which has been enabled on the K-RERA portal under the annual audit report submission option.
Case Title: Shobitha R v. President, Sankalpa Welfare Society (R.)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 13
Case Number : Complaint No: 00547/2025
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) ordered a Welfare Society to reimburse an allottee over ₹22 lakh with interest for the entire cost of a plot in an unregistered project. The Authority, led by Chairman Rakesh Singh, on 12th January, 2026, made it clear that if a welfare organisation develops and sells real estate, it qualifies as 'Promoter' under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The Bench clarified that it cannot avoid its duties by claiming to be a non-commercial company.
The Bench observed that "mere registration as a welfare society does not immunize an entity from compliance with statutory obligations under other laws, including RERA, if it undertakes activities that amount to real estate development and sale."
The Authority further noted that the society had collected of funds without registration and had blatantly violated statutory obligations under sections 3, 4 and 13 of the Act constituting misrepresentation and unauthorised real estate activity. It dismissed the argument regarding the pending civil suit, stating that K-RERA has "independent jurisdiction under Section 31 to address statutory violations, regardless of parallel civil proceedings."
Case Title : Baishaki Das & Another Versus M/s. Ozone Infra Developers & Others
Case Number - Complaint No: CMP/495/ 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 2
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has directed Ozone Infra Developers to pay Rs 19.87 lakh as interest for the delayed handover of an apartment to two homebuyers who have been waiting for possession for over four years beyond the promised date. The authority also asked the developer to hand over possession at the earliest after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. The complaint was decided ex parte after the builder failed to file any objections despite being given repeated opportunities.
Holding that there was delay, the authority held that the buyers were entitled to interest for the delayed period under Section 18 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016. It directed the developer to pay interest from June 30, 2021, until the date possession is handed over along with the Occupancy Certificate.
Case Title: Ramkumar & Anr Versus Casagrande Garden City Builders Private Limited
Case Number: Complaint No. 00729/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 3
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has directed Casagrande Garden City Builders Private Limited to refund Rs. 52.74 lakh to a Bengaluru homebuyer after finding that the builder indulged in unfair trade practices by repeatedly changing the cost breakup and inflating the GST component. The order was passed by a bench headed by Member G.R. Reddy, who noted that the conduct of the promoter was manifest on record. Agreeing with the homebuyers, the authority held that the claim remained unchallenged as the builder did not file any written objections. Referring to apex court rulings on Section 18 of the RERA Act, the authority reiterated that an allottee has an unqualified right to seek a refund of the amount with interest when the promoter/developer violates its obligations.
Haryana RERA
Haryana RERA Awards ₹26.96 Lakh For Loss Of Appreciation Due To Delay In “The Heartsong” Project
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma vs Experion Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No. 2515-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 88
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 6 May held that a homebuyer is entitled to compensation for loss of property appreciation arising from delayed possession, and directed Experion Developers to pay Rs. 26.96 lakh on this account, along with additional compensation and costs.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed that residential property prices in Sector 108, Gurugram had witnessed substantial appreciation over the years and assessed compensation on the basis of notional investment growth. He held:
“Residential property in Sector-108 has been a massive appreciation over the long term, with some data suggesting flat prices grew by over 130% in the last 5 years (relative to early 2023). It is presumed that if the amount paid by the complainant ie. Rs.20,73,670/- up to 30.07.2016 (date of payment) was invested in some other similar project, it would have appreciated to Rs.26,95,771/-.”
Case Title: Kunal Vashisht Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. & Others
Case Number: Complaint No. 2804-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 90
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has dismissed a complaint seeking additional compensation for delay in handing over possession of a commercial unit, holding that the allottee had already been granted relief for the delay through an earlier order.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed:
“When complainant has already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession."
Case Title : Jagdish Chauhan vs. Ansal Housing Limited
Case Number : 6044 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 65
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) recently dismissed a complaint against Ansal Housing Limited, holding that an allottee who chooses to continue in a project and has already been granted delayed possession compensation cannot seek additional compensation for the same period of delay. Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held, “When complainant has already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession. Complaint in hands is thus dismissed. ”
Case Title : Glorii Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s AIPL Bharat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 70
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently cleared the way for registration of the project “The Riviera at AIPL Lake City” in Gurugram, even as a land dispute linked to part of the project remains pending. The Authority said the mere existence of litigation is not enough to deny registration, as long as safeguards are in place to protect buyers. In an order dated March 30, 2026, HARERA revisited the matter after the Appellate Tribunal sent it back for a fresh decision. Following a fresh round of consideration, it allowed the project to go ahead, subject to conditions.
At the same time, it directed the promoter to freeze the portion of the project linked to the disputed land and not sell or market units in that part. The Authority, comprising Chairperson Arun Kumar and Member P.S. Saini, said that buyers must be fully informed about the dispute. It ordered, “The promoter shall make full, complete, and prominent disclosure of the litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 21373 of 2025, or any other proceedings affecting rights in the project land, in all brochures, advertisements, marketing or promotional materials, and on the promoter's website with respect to the project. The promoter shall also ensure that the said disclosure forms an integral part of every agreement for sale executed with allottees.”
Haryana RERA Orders Signature Infrabuild To Pay Interest For Delay In Affordable Housing Project
Case Title : Avtar Singh Guleria Versus Signature Infrabuild Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint no. 897 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 62
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently directed Signature Infrabuild to pay interest to a homebuyer for delay in handing over possession of a flat in its Gurugram project, holding that the developer failed to meet the stipulated timeline and had not obtained the Occupation Certificate. A bench comprising Member Phool Singh Saini observed that the delay in offering possession amounted to a failure on the part of the promoter to fulfill its obligations.
“The Authority is of the considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondent in offering possession of the subject unit and it is a failure on the part of the promoter to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities to hand over possession within the stipulated period,” the order said.
Case Title : Col. Kanwar Ripu Sain Jaswal & Anr. v. M/s EMAAR India Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 281 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 59
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has recently refused to grant additional compensation to homebuyers who chose to remain in a delayed project, holding that once delayed possession interest has been awarded, no separate compensation can be claimed for the same delay. “When the complainants have already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession. Complaint in hands is thus dismissed. ,” Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar said while dismissing the complaint on February 10.
Development Authority Constructing Flats for Sale Is a Promoter Under RERA: Haryana RERA
Case Title : Balwan Singh v. Housing Board Haryana & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 3151 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 54
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Panchkula, has recently held that a development authority that constructs and allots flats for sale falls within the definition of a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and can be directed to refund the allottee with interest for failure to hand over possession within a reasonable time. Passing the order in a complaint filed by Balwan Singh, Member Nadiam Akhtar directed the Housing Board Haryana to pay Rs 3,46,507 as the balance refund with interest, noting that the Board had retained the complainant's money for years without offering possession of the flat. The Authority observed, "Plain reading of the definition given under section 2(zk) makes it clear that any development authority in respect of allottees of building/apartment, as the case may be, constructed by such authority for sale is a promoter in respect of allottees of those buildings/apartments. Here, Housing Board Haryana is a Development Authority and has issued an allotment letter to complainant on 12.02.2015 and issued provisional registration number 36/RTK05/T-B/HGB and final registration number 120 at Rohtak Sector-5. Hence, Housing Board is covered under the definition of promoter under section 2(zk).."
Haryana RERA Orders Imperia Structures To Pay ₹55 Lakh For Loss Of Property Appreciation
Case Title : Harjeet Kaur Dhillon & Anr. v. M/s Imperia Structures Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 3610 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 57
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on 16 March directed Imperia Structures Ltd. to pay Rs. 55 Lakhs to a homebuyer as compensation for loss of appreciation in property value due to delayed possession of the residential unit. A Bench comprising Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar (AO) observed that the builder had received a substantial portion of the sale consideration but failed to deliver possession within the agreed time. Such a delay, it said, resulted in financial loss to the homebuyer and justified grant of compensation in addition to refund already ordered earlier. It observed: “……that based on available market trends, flats in Sector 37-C, Gurugram witnessed significant appreciation between 2017, being the due date of possession and 2023, largely driven by the development of the Dwarka Expressway. The Authority noted that estimates indicate an increase of around 79.5% over five years, reflecting a sharp rise in property values during this period.”
Haryana RERA Orders Developers To Pay ₹40.16 Lakh To Homebuyers For Lost Property Appreciation
Case Title : Mridula Parti & Anr. v. Microtek Infrastructures Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 1369-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 30
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has recently directed Microtek Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. and Deepanshu Projects Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs 40.16 lakh to homebuyers towards loss of property appreciation, even though the buyers had earlier been granted refund of the deposited amount.
Referring to Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Officer held that when the promoter fails to hand over possession as per the agreement for sale, “apart from refund of the amount, allottees-complainants are entitled for compensation.”
The officer referred to the residential real estate market in Gurugram. The order records that average housing prices surged by nearly 160% between January 1, 2017 and October 29, 2024.
It observed, "It can be presumed that amount paid by complainants to the respondents in purchase of subject unit, if was invested in some other similar project, it would have at-least doubled till the date of order of refund.”
Case Title Dr. Kumar Rajiv & Anr. Versus Adani M2K Projects LLP
Case Number Complaint No: 5388 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 95
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has held that homebuyers in an Adani M2K project who chose to continue with the project after securing delayed possession compensation cannot seek separate compensation for the same delay.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held, “The parliament did not intend to provide compensation other than DPC in case allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project.”
The ruling came while dismissing a complaint filed by two homebuyers against Adani M2K Projects LLP, the developer of the Oyster Grande residential project in Gurugram.
Case Title : Sushila Devi Versus M/S Elan Limited
Case Number: Complaint no: 2360 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 101
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has recently directed Elan Limited to refund the money paid by allottees of a commercial unit in its "Elan Epic" project.
While upholding the cancellation of the allotment on account of the allottees' failure to clear outstanding dues, the Authority held that the builder could not forfeit more than 10% of the sale consideration as earnest money.
“while cancelling the unit, it was an obligation of the respondent to return the paid-up amount after deducting the amount of earnest money.”, the authority noted.
Case Title: Renu Chawla vs Ansal Housing Limited
Case Number : 3030 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 100
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) recently (May 19) directed Ansal Housing Limited to refund Rs. 77.35 lakh along with interest to homebuyers after finding that the possession offer issued by the builder was invalid, as it was made without obtaining the Occupation Certificate.
A coram comprising Arun Kumar (Chairman) observed that:
“There is a delay in handing over the possession as due date of possession was 07.11.2015 whereas, the respondent has failed to obtain the occupation certificate from the concerned authorities till date.”
Haryana RERA Orders Assotech Moonshine To Pay 10.80% Delay Interest For 10-Year Possession Delay
Case Title: Radha Aggarwal Versus Assotech Moonshine Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complainant No 4416 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 98
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA), Gurugram, has directed Assotech Moonshine Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. to pay delayed possession interest to a homebuyer after finding that it had failed to hand over an apartment in its "Assotech Blith" project. The contractual possession date had expired on July 20, 2016.
A bench of Chairman Arun Kumar observed that the builder had still not obtained the Occupation Certificate nearly a decade after the agreed possession date. Holding that the homebuyer had chosen to remain in the project, the Authority ruled that she was entitled to delayed possession interest at the prescribed rate.
The authority observed, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the respondent has failed to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the competent authority till date despite the expiry of approximately ten years from the promised date of possession.”
Haryana RERA Orders Vatika Ltd to Pay ₹38 lakh Compensation Over Refund For Delayed Gurugram Project
Case Title : Bhawna Narang v. Vatika Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 3434-2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 16
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) directed developer Vatika Limited to pay Rs 38 lakh as compensation to a homebuyer for loss of property appreciation caused by prolonged delay in completing a housing project in Gurugram. Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar said the developer gained unfairly by holding the buyer's money without building the project. Referring to the rise in developmental activities in that area, he observed that “money paid by the complainant to the respondent would have at least doubled till now, if invested with some other similar project.” Taking note of development activity and rising prices in the area, the Adjudicating Officer was of the opinion that the buyer had suffered a clear financial loss. The Authority awarded Rs 38 lakh as compensation for loss of prospective appreciation, Rs 1 lakh for mental harassment, and Rs 50,000 as litigation costs. The amounts are to be paid with 10.85% interest from the date of the order until realisation.
Builders Cannot Charge Labour Cess Or Work Contract Tax from Homebuyers: Haryana RERA
Case Title : Seekha Cecelia Gomes v. Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 2019 of 2025 and three connected matters.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 34
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently reiterated that builders cannot recover labour cess or work contract tax from homebuyers. The authority also directed Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest to buyers for the delay in handing over flats in its Expressway Towers project in Sector 109, Gurugram. Chairman Arun Kumar observed that such charges cannot be passed on to buyers. “The allottee is neither an employer nor a contractor, and labour cess is not a tax but a fee. Thus, the demand of labour cess is completely arbitrary, and the complainant cannot be made liable to pay any labour cess,” the authority said.
Haryana RERA Holds NBCC Liable To Compensate Shop Owner For Property Loss, Interiors & Mental Agony
Case Title : Mr. Nand Lal v. M/s. NBCC (India) Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 4616 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 39
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has held that a buyer compelled to vacate a commercial unit due to structural defects is entitled to compensation for loss of property appreciation, interior work expenses, mental agony, and litigation costs, in addition to refund of the purchase price, with interest. “That it is unfortunate that the Project has become unhabitable, although, it is pointed out that the Project building still stands tall, albeit with structural cracks. Therefore, it has rendered the performance of the respondent's promises to its allottees impossible”, the Authority held.
Haryana RERA Orders Imperia Structures To Pay Lease Rental To Buyers of Gurugram Office Unit
Case Title : Vikas Verma & Ors. v. Imperia Structures Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 3191 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 41
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Imperia Structures Ltd to pay lease rental to buyers of a commercial unit in its Gurugram project in line with commitments made under a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. A bench led by Chairperson Arun Kumar ordered the builder to pay lease rental to the complainants until the space is leased out to an intended lessee, stating: “Promoter is directed to pay lease rental at the agreed rate i.e. @ Rs. 50 per sq. ft. per month on 500 sq. ft. to the complainants from the date of valid offer of possession i.e. 06.07.2020 till the offered space is leased out to intended lessee, as per the terms of memorandum of understanding dated 06.12.2011.”
Haryana RERA Directs Builder To Refund Homebuyers Of Mahira Project After Registration Revocation
Case Title : Rudal Yadav v Mahira Buildtech Private Limited and 3 others
Case Number : Complaint No. 4618 of 2025 and 3 others
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 48
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on 13 February directed Mahira Buildtech to refund the amounts paid by homebuyers in the project Mahira Homes–103 after the project's registration was revoked due to serious irregularities.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Arun Kumar observed that, as the project registration had been revoked and the builder could no longer continue development, the homebuyers were entitled to a refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, along with interest.
Haryana RERA Directs Parsvnath Developers To Pay ₹77.63 Lakh Compensation For Delay in Possession
Case Title : Raj Kumar Chawla & Anr Versus Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 803-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 43
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 24 February directed Parsvnath Hessa Developers to pay Rs. 77.63 lakhs to a homebuyer as compensation for loss of appreciation in property value due to a delay in handing over possession.
A Bench comprising Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar, observed that property prices in Sectors 53 and 54 along Golf Course Road, Gurugram, witnessed significant appreciation between 2012 and 2022. Taking note of the market trend, the Authority held that the value of residential properties in the area had increased by around 50 percent during this period.
The Bench observed:
“Taking an overall approach, it is presumed that prices of residential houses were appreciated during the entire period from September 2012 to September 2022.”
Goa RERA
Project With Occupancy Certificate Cannot Be Treated as 'Ongoing Project' Under RERA: Goa RERA
Case Title : Shakuntala Mesquita v. K.K. Construction & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 348/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(GA) 47
The Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently dismissed a complaint seeking registration of the “Nuvem Enclave” project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority held that a project or phase which has already obtained a completion or occupancy certificate cannot subsequently be treated as an “ongoing project” requiring registration under Section 3 of the Act.
The authority, comprising Chairperson Dharmendra Sharma observed that: “The defence raised by the Respondent is persuasive on facts and law. The statutory scheme for determining an 'ongoing project' and if it is a 'registrable' project, embeds within its calculus exclusion of projects or phases thereof, for which completion certificate has been issued.”
Punjab RERA
Case Title Bhupesh Rana & Anr. v. Ambika Realcon Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 0018 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 80
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a homebuyer's statutory right to interest for delayed possession cannot be defeated by contractual terms, while rejecting a developer's objections based on arbitration and alleged payment defaults.
A coram of Member Binod Kumar Singh held, "At the outset it is held that the Act provides for payment of interest in case of delay in handing over of possession, and this legal right of an allottee cannot be defeated by the lack of such a provision in any document issued by a promoter.”
The ruling came while allowing a complaint filed by Bhupesh Rana and Ambika Rana against Ambika Realcon Private Limited and directing the developer to pay ₹19,02,904 as delayed possession interest for delayed delivery of a flat in its Florence Park project in New Chandigarh.
Homebuyers Cannot Seek Refund Of Contractually Agreed Super Area Charges: Punjab RERA
Case Title: Megha Chowdhri & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. RERA/GC No. 0445 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 82
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a developer cannot unilaterally charge homebuyers for any increase in carpet area or super area unless such charges are expressly agreed upon in the buyer's agreement.
However, it refused to order refund of super area-based amounts paid by buyers in a case against Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd., after finding that the pricing structure had been clearly disclosed and accepted by the buyers at the time of booking.
Member Arunvir Vashishta, who decided the matter, held, “But definitely in the opinion of this bench nothing can be charged for an unilateral increase either in the carpet area or in super area if so has not been agreed upon by the parties in the buyer's agreement hat has to be ofcourse in the form as prescribed in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Act. RERA rules, 2017.”
Case Title : Arvind Nagar Residential Welfare Society v. Pawan Goods Merchants Co. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 0242/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 73
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 15 April held that homebuyers in possession of their units and enjoying project amenities cannot evade maintenance charges on the ground that the developer has not obtained a completion or occupancy certificate. Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal, directed the Arvind Nagar Residential Welfare Society to take over maintenance of the colony in Bathinda, holding that Sections 11(4)(d) and 17 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 impose a clear obligation on the association to assume control of common areas, manage essential services, and collect maintenance charges once occupation begins. He observed:
“In the present case, the allottees are staying and are enjoying the amenities and premises have been constructed. The providing of electricity and water supply, free of cost, cannot be extended for an indefinite time though, the project is registered under the RERD Act, 2016 and legally not completed in view of non-availability of occupation/ completion certificate as the case may be. There is a long delay in obtaining the occupation or completion certificate, but this does not give a guarantee and a license to the residents to stay without paying maintenance charges after taking over possession of plots and thereafter constructing houses over it.”
Case Title : Gora Singh v. The Chief Administrator, Bathinda Development Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 0062 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 36
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 19 February, held that the existence of an arbitration clause or a statutory bar under State law does not oust its jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that in the absence of a valid Completion Certificate and completion of development works, an allottee is entitled to refund with interest for delay in handing over possession. The Authority held: “At the very outset it is concluded that none of the legal issues raised by the respondents have any merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Vs. Aftab Singh' (Civil Appeals No.23512-23513 of 2017) held that mere presence of an arbitration class does not preclude the jurisdiction of this Authority.”
RERA Act Does Not Mandate Builder To Provide Guest Parking Or Equal Parking Allocation: Punjab RERA
Case Title : Manpreet Singh v. Udit Jain & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. GC No. 0164 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 52
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not mandate builders to provide reserved guest parking, equal parking slots to all residents, or to allocate parking spaces in any specific manner. The Authority comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyer Manpreet Singh against Udit Jain (Director of One Group), One Group and Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (respondents) concerning parking allocation in the Mohali-based 'One Rise' residential project. “There is no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to instruct the builder to provide 5% reserved common parking space for guest, to allocate equal number of parking to all the flat owners and to define the size and area of the parking", it observed.
Punjab RERA Directs Omaxe Chandigarh Developers To Pay 10.80% Interest For Delayed Possession
Case Title : Bharat Singh Bisht & Anr Versus M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No.0344 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (CH) 42
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 2 March directed Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers to pay interest at the rate of 10.80% per annum to a homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
A Bench comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh observed:
“Respondent is further directed to pay interest under Section 18(1) of the Act of 2016 at the rate of 10.80% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant from the date of this order till the delivery of valid legal possession of the flat.”
Case Title: Angad Jot Singh Multani v. Estate Officer, Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority (PDA) and M/s Omaxe Limited
Case Number: RERA/GC No. 0181 of 2023 UR
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 25
Holding that the delay “stands admitted and cannot be justified,” the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed Omaxe Limited and the Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority to refund the entire principal amount received for a flat after more than 12 years of delay in possession. Interest will be payable from the date the subsequent purchaser was recognised as an allottee.
In its order dated 29.01.2026, Member Runvir Vashisht held, “The plea that RERA provisions are inapplicable is not tenable because the cause of action continues until possession is delivered or refund is made. Hence, the jurisdiction of this Authority is attracted.”
The Authority rejected the defence of force majeure and pending litigation. It observed, “The plea of force majeure and pendency of litigation does not absolve the respondents of their liability, particularly when the project stands unregistered and development work has remained incomplete for more than a decade.” It further noted that the delay “stands admitted and cannot be justified.”
Punjab RERA Directs Omaxe to Pay ₹7.87 Lakh to Homebuyer for Possession Delay
Case Title: Payal Luthra Vs Omaxe Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GC No. 0011/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 99
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has recently directed Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 7.87 lakh to a homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of a flat in its New Chandigarh project.
The order was passed by a bench headed by Chairperson Rakesh Kumar Goyal which observed:
“The Respondent's failure to pay interest as per “Agreement for Sale” and further as per Section 18 of the RERD Act, 2016 constitutes violation of contractual and statutory obligations.”
Right To Interest For Delayed Possession Cannot Be Waived Through Consent Letter: Punjab RERA
Case Title: Neeraj Verma & Anr. vs ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: GC No. 0171 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 102
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has reiterated that a plot buyer's statutory right to claim interest for delayed possession cannot be defeated by a consent undertaking executed in favour of a developer.
The Authority consequently directed ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest to buyers of a plot in its ATS Golf Meadows-5 project at Derabassi.
A bench of Member Arunvir Vashista rejected the developer's reliance on a consent letter signed by the buyers in January 2023. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., the Authority observed:
"The right to claim interest on the period of delayed possession is an indefeasible and unqualified right given to an allottee by the statute which cannot be taken away or declined."
Punjab RERA Orders ₹24.38 Lakh Refund To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession Of Sunny Enclave Plot
Case Title Sanjeev Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number Complaint No. C No. 0015 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 96
On 27 May, the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) reiterated that homebuyers cannot be compelled to remain in indefinitely delayed real estate projects and are entitled to seek refund with interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 where promoters fail to deliver possession within a reasonable time.
The Authority, comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh, directed Bajwa Developers Ltd. and others to refund Rs. 24,38,075 to Gurgaon resident Sanjeev Kumar along with interest at 10.80% per annum from the respective dates of payment until realisation. It held:
“Since the possession of plot has been delayed inordinately; therefore, as provisions of Section 18 the complainant is entitled to claim refund along with interest as per its choice in case of non-completion by agreed date.”
Offering Possession Of Flat Without Occupation Certificate Is Illegal: Punjab RERA
Case Title: Kavita Marwah & Anr. v. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 14
Case Number: GC No. 0446 of 2023
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ruled that a developer cannot legally offer possession of a flat without first obtaining mandatory statutory approvals and that extensions granted for project completion do not override the possession date promised to a homebuyer. RERA Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal, while partly allowing a complaint against Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, said that “the extension in completion by RERA, Punjab, has no relevance and bearing on the date of possession mentioned in the 'Allotment Letter' issued to the allottee.”
Emphasising the prolonged delay, the authority observed that “since the construction has been delayed inordinately, therefore, as per provisions of Section 18, the complainant is entitled to claim interest for the period of delay.”
Case Title : Teena Goel v. Chief Administrator, PUDA & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 0095 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 17
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has upheld the cancellation of a commercial shop allotment in Mohali after the buyer failed to meet auction payment timelines but directed refund of a separate deposit of Rs 3 lakh that had been retained without any forfeiture order in this case. The order was passed by a bench of Member Binod Kumar Singh. While examining how the payments were handled in this allotment, the Authority explained why the later deposit could not be retained. It observed, “It is a general financial principle that the interest of any money belongs to the person (complainant) who owns the money. In case the money is utilized by other person (respondent) without any due compensation to the owner of money, the interest earned on it should be refunded to the owner (complainant).”
Punjab RERA Calls For Strategic Development Planning To Curb Mushrooming Of Unplanned Projects
Case Title : Anu Gupta v. Estate Officer, PUDA & Anr.
Case Number : RERA/G/0457 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 22
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has warned that the absence of regional strategic planning is contributing to repeated failures in real estate projects, particularly around fast-growing urban belts such as Chandigarh and Zirakpur. In a detailed order, the Authority said unplanned and unchecked development along highways and arterial roads reflects either the non-formulation of a strategic master plan or a failure to adhere to one and called for urgent corrective measures at a systemic level.
The observations were made by Member Arunvir Vashista while deciding a complaint relating to a delayed commercial project developed as a joint venture between the Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority and Omaxe in Patiala. It said the “mushroom growth of commercial and residential projects right on the main roads and highways”, accompanied by heavy footfall and congestion, pointed to serious lapses in planning.
"It is for this reason it becomes urgently indispensable to have both a regional and a national strategic plan. It also required at the same time that those plans are revised from time to time depending upon the changes that are necessitated for sustainability of development in view of everchanging geological conditions. Besides, regional and national level strategic planning inherently involves long term planning in specific areas with flexibility and adaptability encouraging environmentally sustainable construction and affordable housing promoting standardization and use of appropriate construction material, fixtures, fittings and construction techniques.", the authority said.
Himachal Pradesh RERA
Homebuyers Cannot Occupy Flat, Derive Benefit And Refuse Maintenance Charges: HP RERA
Case Title: Vipin Kumar Singhal & Anr. v. Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complaint No. HPRERA2025016/C
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 78
Holding that homebuyers who continue to occupy a flat and derive benefits from it cannot completely deny liability towards maintenance charges, the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that allottees in the “Himachal One” project at Baddi must pay reasonable maintenance charges.
The Coram of Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta observed:
“Thus, once the allottee is in possession and is availing services- at least basic in nature- the liability to pay the maintenance cannot be completely denied. In such circumstances, this Authority is of the view that the Complainants cannot take contradictory stands - on one hand enjoying possession of the property and earning benefit from it, and on the other hand denying their liability to pay maintenance charges. A party cannot accept the benefit of a situation and at the same time refuse to fulfill the obligations arising from it.”
Promoter Cannot Escape Post-Possession Obligations: Himachal Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Romit Barnyal v. Vipul Mittal & M/s Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. HPRERA2025005/C
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 64
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a promoter's obligations under Sections 11 and 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the Act) are continuous and non-delegable, requiring strict compliance with sanctioned plans and provision of all essential services even after handing over possession. The Authority comprising Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta allowed the complaint filed in relation to the “New Town Baddi” project and found that Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. had committed deficiency and violated statutory obligations. It held:
“The promoter is legally bound to ensure that the project is completed in all respects, with all essential infrastructure and services made available, before transferring responsibility to the association of allottees or any other entity. In view of the above, this Authority is of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully established deficiency and non-compliance on the part of the promoter and is, therefore, entitled to appropriate reliefs.”
RERA Homebuyer Cannot Claim Refund Of Club Fee Included In Sale Agreement: Himachal Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Sapan Kumar v. Omaxe Chandigarh
Case Number : Complaint No. HPRERA20250026/C
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 38
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) held that club membership charges clearly included in the Agreement for Sale form part of the agreed cost of the flat, and no refund can be claimed merely because the membership was allegedly optional. “Once a charge is expressly mentioned in the Agreement for Sale and is accepted by the allottee/ complainant, the same cannot be treated as optional merely on the basis of 'subsequent conduct or selective enforcement. The rights and liabilities of the parties flow from the Agreement for Sale executed between them and the complainant is bound by the terms of the Agreement for sale which he has voluntarily accepted”, the Authority held.
Case Title : Vimal Sana v. M/s Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. HP RERA/2025021/C
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 104
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) has recently held that a prospective homebuyer's voluntary withdrawal from a proposed flat purchase did not justify retention of the booking amount in the facts of the case, and directed a developer to refund ₹1.01 lakh paid towards booking of a flat.
The order was passed by Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta while allowing a complaint filed by Shimla resident Vimal Sana against Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Private Limited, the developer of the "Mashobra Hills" project.
"The principal defence of the respondent is that the complainant herself withdrew from the transaction due to financial inability and therefore refund is not payable. This contention cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case," the Authority observed.
The Authority further observed, "As per regulation person may choose to withdraw from a proposed booking for personal reasons. However, in absence of a contractual clause authorizing forfeiture, the promoter cannot retain the money deposited by the prospective allottee."
Cross-Examination In Real Estate Proceedings Is An Exception, Not The Rule: Himachal Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Mrs. Ranjana Chaturvedi vs. M/s Rajdeep and company infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint no. HPRERA2024029/C
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 21
On 16 January 2026, the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) rejected a builder's request for cross-examination, ruling that it is an exception under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (The Act), and not a routine requirement. The Authority observed that the primary objective of the Act is to provide expeditious relief to homebuyers, which cannot be delayed by civil court procedures. It emphasised that the authority is duty bound to observe principles of natural justice and application of evidence Act is therefore not necessitated at every stage of proceedings.
Regarding cross-examination, the Bench observed that there is no provision under the Act, Rules, or Regulations for cross-examination of the parties. It noted “cross examination is an exception, not the rule” and that if it were permitted routinely, “the entire purpose of the Act in providing expeditious relief to the allottees would be defeated”.
Himachal Pradesh RERA Orders Unimaxx Builders To Pay ₹6.42 Lakh Pending Dues To Homebuyers
Case Title: Vandana Tuteja & Anr. v. M/s Unimaxx Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Execution Petition No. 27/2024 in Complaint No. HIM/TP/HPRERA/Complaints/2018/VOL-I/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 5
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) upheld an execution order directing Unimaxx Builders to refund Rs 6.42 lakh to homebuyers, holding that objections raised by the developer were a “deliberate attempt to prevent the enforcement of a valid and final order” and were “patently misconceived.” The authority, comprising Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Members Amit Kashyap and Vidur Mehta, ruled that the refund was payable under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, which grants allottees an absolute right to seek a refund along with statutory interest where possession is not delivered by the promoter. The authority rejected the developers' attempts at shifting the blame or reopening the case's merits. The authority stated that executing court must not go beyond the decree and that several objections are frequently filed "in abuse of process of law." The authority emphasized that the liability to reimburse could not be questioned at the execution stage and that the previous decision had attained “finality.”
Case Title: Bithu Indrajit Basu v. Rajdeep & Anr.
Case Number: HPERA2024012/CMA No.: 1-R2/32-2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 4
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) has held that a complaint disclosing a prima facie cause of action under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be rejected at the threshold by invoking a Civil Procedure Code provision meant for rejection of complaints. A coram comprising Chairperson R D Dhiman and Members Amit Kashyap and Vidur Mehta, in an order dated December 22, 2025, said RERA proceedings are summary in nature and factual disputes must be decided on merits.
The authority observed that “Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be invoked only when, on the face of the complaint, no cause of action is disclosed or the complaint is barred by law,” and not where actionable facts are pleaded. On the applicability of the CPC, the authority said the RERA Act specifically lists the CPC provisions that apply to its proceedings, holding that the provisions are expressly included and not excluded. It concluded that “the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC fails to satisfy any of the grounds prescribed under the said provision and, moreover, has no applicability to the proceedings of RERA.”
Assam RERA
Case Title: Shri Mani Pranjal Saikia v. M/s Aradhya Builders and Developers
Case Number : RERA/ASSAM/COM/2025/02
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(AS) 83
The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) recently declined to immediately direct execution of a sale deed in a homebuyer dispute, holding that WhatsApp chats, loan approval documents, and EMI records were not enough to establish full and final payment for a flat without proper receipts or authenticated bank statements.
Chairman Paban Kr. Borthakur observed, "However, upon careful consideration, it is observed that the material produced by the complainant does not present a clear and cogent account of the payments allegedly made. The WhatsApp communications, though voluminous, do not conclusively establish the amounts paid on specific dates and, instead, create ambiguity in the absence of a structured and verifiable statement of payments."
Tamil Nadu RERA
RERA Act Contains No Provision To Appoint Receiver For Sale Of Unsold Flats: Tamil Nadu RERA
Case Title: Tvl. G. Sathya & 110 Others v. Ozone Projects Private Limited
Case Number: I.A. No. 50 of 2022 in C. Nos. 3 to 27, 37 to 60, 70 to 96, 103 to 127, 146 to 152, 201 & 268 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 91
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has dismissed an application filed by more than 100 homebuyers of Ozone Projects Private Limited's "Metrozone" project seeking appointment of a receiver to effectuate the sale of unsold flats.
The Authority, however, directed the developer to file a status report on construction in Phase IV, an encumbrance certificate for the unsold inventory and an updated quarterly progress report.
The order was passed on May 25 by a coram comprising Chairperson Thiru Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy while dealing with an interlocutory application filed by Tvl. G. Sathya and 110 others in a batch of pending complaints concerning the project.
“Upon perusal of the documents and hearing both the parties, the Authority finds no provision under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to appoint a receiver to address the relief sought in the interlocutory application.”,the authority ruled.
Developer Liable To Fix Non-Structural Defects Reported Within Five Years: TN RERA
Case Title Tarun Chatterjee v. M/s Sai UVR Properties Ltd.
Case Number Complaint No. 003 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 74
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a developer remains liable to rectify defects arising from poor workmanship, including non-structural cracks and seepage, where such defects are brought to its notice within five years from the date of handing over possession.
“As per Section 11(4)(a) of the RERA Act, the Respondent Promoter is responsible for all obligations and functions under the provision of the Act. Further, as per Section 14(3) of the RERA Act, any structural or any other defects in workmanship, quality or provision of services is brought to the notice of the Respondent within period of five years from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the Respondent Promoter to rectify such defects without further charges within thirty days.", the authority observed.
A coram comprising Chairperson Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Sukumar Chittibabu passed the order on April 10, 2026.
Tamil Nadu RERA Orders Registration Of Prestige Silver Springs As An 'Ongoing' Project
Case Title : Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association, through its Secretary v. M/s Prestige South City Holdings & Anr.
Case Number : C. No. 89 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 35
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA) on 4 February, directed Prestige South City Holdings to register the project “Prestige Silver Springs” under RERA within 60 days, holding that where villas remained incomplete when the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into force, the project must be treated as an “ongoing project” requiring registration under Section 3. The Bench observed: “Ultimately, the villas were provided with water sewerage connection only on 06.06.2023. Therefore, the project "Prestige Silver Springs" was not completed on the date of coming into force of RERA Act. Therefore, it is an ongoing project only.”
Tamil Nadu RERA Orders Casagrand Millenia to Pay Rs. 3 Lakh for Mental Agony Over Delayed Possession
Case Title : Logeshwaran Janardhanan & Anr. v. M/s. Casagrand Millenia Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CCP No. 54 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 40
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 10 February, held that a homebuyer is entitled to compensation foxr mental agony caused by delayed possession and directed Casagrand Millenia to pay Rs. 3 Lakh. The Authority also awarded Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs. Adjudicating Officer Tmt. N. Uma Maheswari observed: “There is no use of executing the sale deed alone in favour of the complainants without handing over the booked unit to them. Ex.A3 — The Construction Agreement is silent about the stagewise payments. In these circumstances, the delay caused by the respondent is not acceptable and thereby the complainants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the mental agony they have sustained due to the delay.”
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyers against Godrej SSPDL Green Acres LLP, the developer of the residential project “Godrej Azure – Twr 2 – Emerald” in Kancheepuram district, seeking rectification of alleged structural defects in their flat or, in the alternative, refund of the purchase amount.
A coram comprising Members Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. D. Jagannathan (Retd. IAS) held that the refund could not be granted as the complainants had already taken possession of the flat in June 2020 and continued to remain in possession. The Authority also noted that records showed the developer had undertaken rectification works when complaints were raised.
The bench observed:
“Upon the perusal of documents filed by the Respondents, the job cards dated 18.07.2021, 03.08.2021 and 30.04.2022 shows that the rectification works were taken up by the Respondents and the same was acknowledged by the complainants and their Tenant."
Case Title : R. Jagan Kumar v. Selene Estate Limited
Case Number : C.No. 121 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 55
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently held that labour shortage, material scarcity and delay in approvals are not valid excuses for construction delay and found Selene Estate Limited in violation of its agreement with complainant R. Jagan Kumar after cancelling the allotment and reselling the flat to a third party. The Authority, comprising Chairperson Thiru Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Thiru Sukumar Chittibabu, held that the complainant had complied with the payment schedule and that the resale at a higher price showed a profit motive. “The Respondent has submitted that delay in construction occurred due to natural calamities, labour and material shortage, delay in statutory approvals etc. All these reasons are very generic in nature and cannot be held as valid reasons for delay. It is the responsibility of the Respondent to arrange labour and construction material and obtain statutory approvals. It is beyond the apprehension of this Authority that what kind of statutory approvals the Respondent is talking about when the project has already been registered with TNRERA,” the Authority observed.
Case Title : Mugundhine v. M/s Cybercity Mangadu Project Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : CCP No. 62 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 56
In a delayed possession dispute involving a housing project in Chennai, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that the marketing entity is not a “promoter” and cannot be held liable, while also declining to fasten liability on the landowner and directing the developer to pay compensation. Dismissing the complaint against Anugraha Real Value Services (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. and Shriram Properties Ltd., the Authority held that neither entity had any privity of contract with the complainant. Clarifying the scope of liability, the authority observed, “it does not come under the definition of promoter as per Section 2(zk). It did not construct or convert or sell any of the building or apartments. Similarly it did not develop any land into a project for the purpose of selling to other persons. It had acted as a Marketing Person for the project of the 1st Respondent. Exhibits A1 & A2 do not expose this 3rd Respondent as a party to the agreements. There is no other privity of contract in between the complainant and the 3rd Respondent and so it is not liable to pay for any reliefs to the complainant.”
Case Title : Thiru P.S. Saravanan v. Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : C. No. 14/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 27
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently directed Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. to complete construction and hand over Sky Villa No. 3-A in its “Aquamarine Olympia Opaline” project to the complainant/homebuyer on or before February 28, 2026.
The authority recorded that “In a nutshell, the complainant neither has the possession nor the ownership of the Sky villa No.3-A.” It held that “the delay in handing over the Sky Villa within the specified time frame is attributable to the 1st Respondent.”
It further held that the association's demand of Rs. 32,98,239.78 towards maintenance charges was “not maintainable.”
Case Title : Ms. Nithya & Anr. v. M/s Casa Grand Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CCP 275 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 105
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA), on 3 June, held that Casa Grand Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. cannot retain amounts linked to common areas where it uses such areas for additional parking without approval, and it directed the developer to refund Rs.5,94,832 to homebuyers in a Chennai residential project.
A Bench comprising Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. D. Jaganathan, I.A.S. (Retd.), partly allowed the complaint filed by Nithya and R. Maghizharaman and ordered a refund of Rs.5,94,832 while rejecting the remaining reliefs. The Authority observed:
“Hence, the encroachment was not yet rectified by the Respondent. Due to additional car parking provided by the Respondent, there has been encroachment upon the common area for which the Complainants have paid certain amount towards the common area. Therefore, the Complainants are entitled for Rs.5,94,832/- towards the encroachment of common area, as per the calculation submitted by the Complainants which was not disputed by the Respondent.”
Tamil Nadu RERA Mandates Three Bank Accounts Per Real Estate Project To Track Homebuyer Funds
In order to ensure that money collected from homebuyers for one real estate project is not diverted to another, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA) has issued an order requiring promoters/builders to operate three separate and designated bank accounts for every registered project. The order, issued on December 12, 2025, will apply to all project registration and resubmission applications received from January 1, 2026 onwards. The Authority said the new framework is meant to bring the entire flow of buyer funds under regulatory oversight, starting from the point of collection.
It held that “there is no mechanism to monitor the collection account. Further, in some cases, promoter maintains a separate collection account for each project whereas in some cases, the collection account may serve multiple projects." Promoters will now have to give the authority full details of all project loans, whether secured or unsecured. This includes information on the lender, the amount sanctioned and disbursed, outstanding dues, mortgage details, and a chartered accountant's certification that the loan has been used only for the project. Promoters will also need prior written approval from TNRERA for any change in the project's designated bank accounts.
Case Title : Ms. Nithya & Anr. v. M/s Casa Grand Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CCP 275 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 105
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA), on 3 June, held that Casa Grand Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. cannot retain amounts linked to common areas where it uses such areas for additional parking without approval, and it directed the developer to refund Rs.5,94,832 to homebuyers in a Chennai residential project.
A Bench comprising Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. D. Jaganathan, I.A.S. (Retd.), partly allowed the complaint filed by Nithya and R. Maghizharaman and ordered a refund of Rs.5,94,832 while rejecting the remaining reliefs. The Authority observed:
“Hence, the encroachment was not yet rectified by the Respondent. Due to additional car parking provided by the Respondent, there has been encroachment upon the common area for which the Complainants have paid certain amount towards the common area. Therefore, the Complainants are entitled for Rs.5,94,832/- towards the encroachment of common area, as per the calculation submitted by the Complainants which was not disputed by the Respondent.”
Bihar RERA
Case Title: Mr. Ejaz Shoaib Hussain and Mr. Arbaaz Shoaib v. M/s Honest Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/294/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 85
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a landowner's claim that a builder had shortchanged him in the allocation of flats in the “Hashmi Residency” project in Patna was not sustainable, after finding that he had accepted an alternative flat in another project towards adjustment of his share.
The single bench of Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh said the subsequent agreement signed by the parties reflected their consent to the adjustment of the complainant's share.
“Accordingly, this Bench holds that the claim of the Complainant regarding deficiency in handing over the agreed share is not sustainable, as the Complainant has already received his share in the project as explained in the preceding paragraphs.”
Case Title: Vikrant Vatsa v. M/s Pari Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: RERA/CC/76/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 81
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a Completion Certificate does not free a developer from its obligation to ensure that promised amenities and essential services are actually functional for homebuyers.
Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh said:
"Mere issuance of a Completion Certificate does not absolve the promoter of its statutory obligations to ensure actual and functional provision of promised amenities and services to the allottees. The obligations of the promoter extend beyond structural completion and include ensuring operational readiness of essential services such as drainage, sewage, and common facilities, etc."
Bihar RERA Drops Suo Motu Case Against Developer; Finds No Advertisement Of Unregistered Project
Case Title : Authorised Representative of RERA v M/s Kushika Tradserv Pvt Ltd
Case Number : RERA/SM/682/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 58
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dropped suo motu proceedings against developer Kushika Tradserv Pvt Ltd in relation to its project “Basmati Vatika." The Authority held that the action, initiated under Sections 35 and 59 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, could not be sustained, as no advertisement of the project was found. Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh directed the developer to apply for registration of the project.
Explaining its reasoning, the Authority observed that "after perusing the material placed on record and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is clear that project has been applied for registration with the Authority and that no advertisement has been found at the work site or on online platform which could establish contravention of section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and development) Act 2016".
Case Title: Authorised Representative of RERA v. M/s Alphabet Infra Pvt. Ltd. @ M/s PRU-RLDA Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 7
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that even “Coming Soon” banners, pamphlets and site notice boards amount to advertising under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. It, therefore imposed a Rs 1 lakh penalty on PRU-RLDA Projects Pvt. Ltd. for promoting an unregistered project. In an order dated December 24, 2025, Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh held, “The material placed on record, consisting of a pamphlet inviting bookings for the project and/ or displaying the upcoming project through a notice board kept at place for general public to see, unequivocally falls within the definition of 'advertisement' as provided under Section 2(b) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.”
It further observed, “The sale of units to the public without obtaining mandatory registration reflects a deliberate attempt to circumvent the statutory regulatory framework and defeat the transparency and accountability sought to be ensured under the Act.”
Uttar Pradesh RERA
UP RERA Says Complaints Against Unregistered Projects To Be Heard After Deciding If Registration Was Required
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has clarified that complaints by homebuyers in unregistered housing projects will be taken up on merits only after the authority first determines whether the project was required to be registered under the RERA framework.
In an office order dated April 10, issued under Regulation 38 of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019, the authority operationalised amendments introduced last month to its adjudication framework for complaints involving unregistered projects.
The clarification follows UP RERA's 10th amendment to the 2019 regulations, which inserted clauses 24(e), 24(f), and 24(g) dealing with adjudication of complaints concerning unregistered projects.
Under the revised framework, if a homebuyer files a complaint against an unregistered project, the hearing Bench must first decide whether registration of that project was legally required under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Circular:
UP RERA To Hear Complaints In Unregistered Projects After Amending General Regulations, 2019
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has amended its General Regulations, 2019, enabling the Authority to hear complaints filed by allottees in unregistered projects and prescribing limits on fees charged by promoters for the transfer of allotments. The amendment, notified on March 24, 2026, has come into force upon its publication on the official website of the Authority. The amendment modifies Regulation 24 and Regulation 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019, and deletes amendments made to Regulation 38 by the 6th round of amendments. Regulation 24, which deals with adjudication proceedings before the Authority, has been amended by inserting sub-paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) to address complaints relating to projects that are not registered under the Act. Under the newly inserted provision, "complaints by the allottees of the un-registered projects shall be heard by the Benches of the Authority as per the procedure laid down in this behalf and admissible relief, if any, granted after deciding the question of exemption of the concerned project from registration under the Act as provided under Section-3 read with rule-2(1)(h) of the Rules.”
UP RERA Mandates Training For Real Estate Agents, Requires Certificate For Registration And Renewal
In a recent regulatory order dated 5 January 2026, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) introduced a revised and mandatory Training & Certification framework for Real Estate Agents. The order makes completion of training and certification a pre-condition for the submission and processing of fresh registration, renewal, or amendment applications for real estate agents. It clarifies that no individual, partnership firm, LLP, company, or society can seek registration or modify its status without first completing the prescribed training programme and passing the competency examination.
The new framework has been issued under Regulation 54 of the UP RERA (General) Regulations, 2019 (7th Amendment) and aims to bridge the gap between regulatory requirements and actual practices of agents on the ground. It supersedes the earlier training guidelines issued by the Authority on 10 October 2025.
The programme is structured as a four-day non-residential training, concluding with a mandatory examination on the final day. Further, the requirement applies to individual agents as well as partnerships, LLPs, companies, and societies registered as agents.
The order makes it mandatory for previously registered agents to complete training and obtain certification by 31 December 2026.
Delhi RERA
Delhi RERA Restrains Nbcc From Coercive Action Against Rajeshwari Realty In Saket Project Dispute
Case Title : M/s Rajeshwari Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s NBCC Ltd.
Case Number : (E-08/12/2025)/Execution/RERA/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (DL) 29
With NBCC's appeal pending before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) and no stay in operation, the Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on February 11, 2026 restrained National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited from initiating coercive recovery steps against Rajeshwari Realty Pvt. Ltd. over electricity and maintenance dues.
“Keeping in view the order passed by this Authority, and the fact that the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble REAT, we direct the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Applicant till next date of hearing,” the Bench comprising Chairperson Anand Kumar and Member Devesh Singh ordered.
Andhra Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Bellana Bangaru Naidu v. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 43 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(AP) 53
The Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 5 February, held that a prospective buyer who has neither booked a unit nor entered into an agreement for sale cannot be termed an “aggrieved person” under Section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and therefore cannot maintain a complaint before the Authority. Chairperson A. Siva Reddy and Member M. Venkata Ratnam, dismissed proceedings initiated by Bellana Bangaru Naidu against Hayagreeva Farms and Developers as not maintainable. They held: “A person who has not booked a unit or entered into a registered agreement lacks the locus standi to seek specific reliefs against a project as they have no 'privity of contract' or vested interest in the project's assets.”