Amendment Proposal Introduced in Lok Sabha
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, has been introduced in the Lok Sabha as part of a broader legislative push to decriminalise offences and rationalise penalties across a range of laws. One of the changes relates to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 68 of the Act currently allows for imprisonment of up to one year where an allottee (homebuyer) fails to comply with orders of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. It also provides for a continuing fine, which may cumulatively extend up to 10 percent of the cost of the plot, apartment, or building.
The Bill now proposes to amend this provision. In place of imprisonment, an allottee who fails to comply with, or contravenes orders or directions of the Appellate Tribunal would be liable to a monetary penalty, which may extend up to ten percent of the cost of the plot, apartment, or building, as the case may be. "Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Appellate Tribunal by allottee.—If any allottee, who fails to comply with, or contravenes any of the orders or directions of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, he shall be liable to penalty, which may extend up to ten per cent. of the plot, apartment or building cost, as the case may be"
Supreme Court
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.
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.”
High Courts
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.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Naresh Sharma v/s Union of India and others
Case No.: CWPIL No. 38 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 10
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.
Chhattisgarh High Court
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. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, which set aside an order of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that had refused to dismiss an appeal at the threshold despite objections on jurisdiction.Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that “At the threshold, and for the limited purpose of determining the maintainability of proceedings under the RERA Act, the Authority does not possess jurisdiction to scrutinize, test, or pronounce upon the issuance, validity, correctness, or legal effect of Completion Certificates granted under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, read with the Rules of 2013, so long as such certificates remain in force and have not been declared illegal by a competent forum.”
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.
Kerala High Court
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.
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.”
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.”
Bombay High Court
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”.
Karnataka High Court
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”
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.”
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.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
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
Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 013/2025 and WBREAT/APPEAL No. 016/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 2
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.
Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 008/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 1
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
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.
Odisha REAT
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 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.”
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.
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.
Maharashtra REAT
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".
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."
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.”
Haryana REAT
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.
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.
REAT For NCT Of Delhi And UT Of Chandigarh
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.
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."
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Telangana RERA
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.
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."
Maharashtra RERA
MahaRERA Orders Refund of ₹1.46 Crore Forfeited, As Kalpataru Later Resold Flat
Case Title : Sanjay Navinchandra Choksi & Anr. v. M/S. Kalpataru Property Ventures LLP
Case Number : Complaint No. 58/2025/TGRERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 20
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that Kalpataru Property Ventures LLP could not forfeit over Rs 1.46 crore from two homebuyers after accepting more than the legally permitted 10% without a registered agreement for sale and then sell the same flat to a third party while retaining the money. MahaRERA said the promoter could not be permitted to take advantage of its own statutory breach. “No party can benefit from its own wrong,” the Authority observed. “Mere allegations of investment intent, without proof of speculative resale or commercial dealing by the Complainants, cannot divest them of statutory protection under RERA. Therefore, the Complainants are held to be allottees entitled to invoke provision of RERA.”
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.
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."
Haryana RERA
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.”
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 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.
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: 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.”
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.
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.”
The Authority noted that the total consideration also included the Homebuyer's proportionate share in common areas and facilities, such as lifts, corridors, electrical connections, plumbing, and other project amenities. Therefore, the Homebuyer's contention seeking a refund of the amount allegedly charged on the basis of super area was rejected.
Tamil Nadu RERA
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.”
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.
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.”
Haryana RERA
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.”
Uttar Pradesh RERA
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.
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.”
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.”
Telangana RERA
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.
Himachal Pradesh RERA
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.”
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.
Karnataka RERA
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 : 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.”
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.
Delhi RERA
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.
Bihar RERA
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.”
Rajasthan RERA
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.