HIGH COURTS
Kerala High Court
RERA Cannot Decide Complaint On Merits Before Numbering, Hearing: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Renney Geo Varghese v. The Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) & Ors.; Sindhu M. Poduval v. The Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) & Ors
Case Number : WP(C) No. 24034 of 2026 & WP(C) No. 24977 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 163
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot examine the merits of a complaint while considering it for numbering and reject it as not maintainable without giving the complainant an opportunity of hearing.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. quashed two Kerala RERA orders rejecting complaints filed by Renney Geo Varghese and Sindhu M. Poduval.
The court found that the authority had discussed the merits of the complaints even though they had not been numbered and the complainants had not been heard.
The court observed, “To be precise, the reference of principles of natural justice in section 38, itself indicates the necessity of providing such an opportunity to the complainants or the opposite party, before taking a decision on the same and giving such opportunity, cannot be at the discretion of the 1st respondent, but on the other hand, it is mandatory.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Shailesh B. Charati and Another v. M/s Arya Gruha Private Limited and Others
Case Number : RERA Appeal No.74 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 135
The Karnataka High Court on 9 July held that flat owners cannot claim exclusive rights over common amenities where the registered sale deed permits residents of different phases of a housing project to share such facilities.
A Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the appeal filed by the owners of a flat in the “Arya Hamsa” project and upheld the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal orders allowing residents of the neighbouring “Arya Hamsa Grande” project to use shared roads, the clubhouse and entertainment facilities. The judges observed:
“The only sharing that is envisaged is with respect to facilities available in the common areas such as roads, club house and entertainment facility in any phase by any of the owners of units in the Project. The interest that is being referred to by the Allottees is not created on the flat that has been allotted to them, but on the common facilities such as the club house and other easementary facilities as provided to the Allottees by the Respondents. Since such an interest is not an absolute interest and would not attract the provisions of Section 11 of the T.P Act.”
Case Title : Navaratan Jhunjhunwala & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
Case Number: RERA Appeal No. 76 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 119
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing a Bengaluru-based real estate developer and its promoter to refund about ₹1.77 lakh with interest to homebuyers.
It found that the project, which remained unregistered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, could not claim exemption from registration without demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements.
A division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed:
“It is the mandate of Section 3 of the RERA Act that the registration of ongoing projects has to be made by the promoters within the period specified under the RERA Act. This has, admittedly, not been done by the promoters in the instant matter. Moreover, the exemption from registration could have been claimed by the promoters, where it had received completion certificate for a real estate project prior to commencement of the RERA Act as is the mandate of Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the RERA Act. This too, has not been demonstrated.”
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Directs WB Chief Secretary To Give Timeline For Filling RERA, REAT Vacancies
Case Title Rahul Parasrampuria v. The State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number WPA (P) 427 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC( CAL) 219
On Tuesday, 15 September, the Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal Chief Secretary's office to specify a timeline for filling vacancies in the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) and the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA).
A Division Bench comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra directed the Chief Secretary's office to file a report indicating the status of appointments to the posts of REAT Chairperson and Judicial Member and a Member of WBRERA. The judges observed:
“Let the Office of the Chief Secretary file a report indicating the stage of filling up of vacancies in the aforesaid posts and also mentioning a time limit within which the vacancies will be filled up.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Lack Of Written Allotment Or Agreement Itself Cannot Oust RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr.
Case Number : MA No. 105 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH)25
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the absence of a written allotment document or agreement does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) over a complaint concerning an alleged real estate transaction.
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed, “The word “aggrieved person” used under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 and under Rule 35 of the Rules, 2017, who can file complaint is very wide, therefore, only because no written document to show the allotment of any real estate or any agreement between the parties in itself will not oust the jurisdiction of the RERA."
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail In ₹5.44 Crore Roselyn Square Case, Says Allegations Go Beyond Delay
Case Title : Bhupinder Singla v. State of Punjab
Case Number : CRM-M-33438-2026 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 42
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16 July held that allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy in connection with a real estate project go beyond a simple dispute over delayed possession or non-payment of assured returns.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal dismissed the regular bail plea of Bhupinder Singla, Director of Robus Landcorp Pvt. Ltd., who was accused in the “Roselyn Square” commercial project case, noting that the investigating agency had collected prima facie material, including electronic chat communications allegedly acknowledging cash payments, whose evidentiary value would be examined during trial. He held:
“This is not a simpliciter case of delayed delivery of possession or non-payment of assured returns by a developer, for which the complainant could have availed the statutory remedy under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Rather, the allegations prima facie disclose commission of serious offences involving fabrication and alteration of documents, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.”
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Vishnu Associates Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 33005 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 22
The Orissa High Court has ruled that an incomplete or deficient application cannot be treated as "deemed registered" under Section 5(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, merely because the regulatory authority failed to decide it within 30 days.
Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that Section 5(2) applies only to a valid application that complies with the Act, Rules and Regulations.
Since Vishnu Associates' application remained incomplete, including for want of the final building-plan approval from the District Urban Development Agency (DUDA) in Form-II as required under Section 4(2)(c) and (d) of the Act, the developer could not claim deemed registration.
"This Court fully concurs with the contention raised that 'application' within the meaning of Section 5 has to be a valid application complete in all respects and free from deficiencies and incomplete or deficient application cannot be treated as a valid application. As per clause (b) of sub-section (1), the application must conform to the provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations. ," the court observed.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory v. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta
Case Number : RERA Appeal No. - 1 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 62
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the interest a builder must pay an allottee for delay in handing over possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is the same rate that the builder could have charged the allottee had the allottee defaulted.
Rejecting a builder's plea that its liability was confined to MCLR+1%, the Court upheld an award of interest at 24% per annum because the builder-buyer agreement itself provided for interest at that rate against a defaulting buyer.
The court read Section 2(za) of the Act, 2016, as placing the rate payable by the builder at parity with the rate chargeable from the allottee on default. Since interest under Section 18 is compensatory in character, it held, levying it from a promised date of possession falling before the Act came into force was neither illegal nor arbitrary.
While imposing a cost of ₹2.5 lakh on builder for making the homebuyer go through various rounds of frivolous litigation, Justice Prashant Kumar held
“The provisions of the Act, 2016 specially Section 2(za) makes it clear that the interest means the rate of interest paid by the builder to the allottee, which would be equal to the interest charged from the allottee in case of default. In this case, Clause-19 of the agreement, clearly stipulates that in case of default by the allottee, he would be charged 24% interest.”
Substantial Question Of Law Essential For Appeal Under RERA Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Balaji Infracare Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Omkar Nath Maheshwari v. Vikas Sharma
Case Number : RERA APPEAL No. - 160 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 73
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is maintainable only where a substantial question of law arises, and that an order by which the Appellate Tribunal remands a matter to the Regulatory Authority, without finally determining the rights of either party, gives rise to no such question.
Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 permits a person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to appeal to the High Court within sixty days, but only on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows a second appeal where the case involves a substantial question of law.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“It is thus manifest that, having regard to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 58 of the Act of 2016, an appeal is entertainable when it involves a 'substantial question of law'. The existence of a substantial question of law is, therefore, the sine qua non for invoking and exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 58 of the Act of 2016.”
Tripura High Court
Case Title : Shri Kishore Roy Acharjee & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 437 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 7
The Tripura High Court has imposed ₹40,000 in costs on four homebuyers over parallel proceedings concerning alleged unauthorised construction at an apartment complex in Agartala.
The homebuyers had approached both the Tripura Real Estate Regulatory Authority (T-RERA) and the Agartala Municipal Corporation. They also filed an execution proceeding before T-RERA before approaching the High Court but did not disclose this fact.
“It transpires that they have not approached this Court with clear hands,” Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud observed.
Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Neumec Developers And Builders v. Chirag Jain and Anr.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 315 of 2026 with Second Appeal No. 332 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 482
The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that a promoter cannot have a delay condonation application considered without first making the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), holding that a delay application forms part of the appeal and cannot be treated independently.
Justice N. J. Jamadar delivered the judgment while dismissing two second appeals filed by Neumec Developers and Builders against homebuyers, upholding the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction requiring the promoter to make the pre-deposit before its delay condonation application could be considered. The Bench observed:
“The key words in the proviso are 'entertain' and 'before the said appeal is heard'. The word 'entertain' does not imply the filing or institution of the proceeding. The word 'entertain' has reference to the judicial/quasi-judicial act of application of mind by the Court/Tribunal, in contradistinction to the filing or institution, which is a ministerial act.”
Case Title : Kiyana Estate LLP v. Tina Dharamshey and Anr.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 117 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 2765 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 456
The Bombay High Court has held that a homebuyer's right to receive interest for delayed possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) is an independent and indefeasible statutory right.
The court held that this right cannot be defeated by relying on the principle under the Indian Contract Act that may restrict a claim for compensation where delayed performance is accepted without reserving such a claim.
A Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the ruling while dismissing a second appeal filed by Kiyana Estate LLP against flat buyers Tina Dharamshey and another allottee.
Transfer Of Stamp Duty, Registration Amount To Bank Not Proof Of Payment: Bombay High Court
Case Title : JP Builders and Developers v. Santosh Amarsingh Sandhu (with connected appeal)
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 116 of 2025 with Second Appeal No. 603 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 532
The Bombay High Court has recently held that transferring money to a bank account for payment of stamp duty and registration charges does not by itself establish that the charges were actually paid to the concerned authorities.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while setting aside orders of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) and Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) directing JP Builders and Developers to execute a registered agreement for sale with homebuyer Santosh Amarsingh Sandhu.
The court found that Sandhu had transferred ₹4.65 lakh to a Punjab National Bank account from which the statutory challans were to be generated. However, no challan or e-SBTR was generated, and the amount was never credited to the stamp or registration authorities.
“From the documents on record, it becomes difficult to believe that the allottee actually made payment of stamp duty and registration charges. Mere making provision for stamp duty and registration charges and transfer of the amount to the banker does not mean that stamp duty and registration charges were actually paid by the allottee,” Justice Marne observed.
RERA Tribunal Has Inherent Power To Restore Proceedings Dismissed For Default: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Hubtown Ltd. v. Smitesh Shivaji Patil
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 221 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 3411 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 483
The Bombay High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed for default, even though such power is not expressly provided under Section 53(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), as the Tribunal is required to be guided by principles of natural justice.
Justice N. J. Jamadar, on 22 July, dismissed developer Hubtown Ltd.'s second appeal and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order restoring proceedings that had been dismissed after homebuyer Smitesh Shivaji Patil failed to appear. The Bench observed:
“In a sense, the power to restore a proceeding dismissed in default is a necessary corollary of the power to dismiss the proceeding, in the first place. The power of restoration is implicit in the power of dismissal unless specifically proscribed. When the Appellate Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice in its determination, it cannot be urged with authority that, the Appellate Tribunal cannot restore a proceeding dismissed in default, where it finds that, the cause of justice and equity would be better subserved by restoring the proceeding dismissed in default.”
Case Title : Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1040 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 394
The Bombay High Court on 10 July initiated contempt proceedings against the Collector of Mumbai and Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar after finding prima facie non-compliance with its directions on execution of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) recovery warrants.
A Division Bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata issued show-cause notices under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, holding that the Collector failed to comply with the direction to file a personal affidavit and that the Tahsildar improperly assumed the Collector's role by filing the affidavit. It observed:
“This Court has not authorised or permitted Mr. Dilip Rayannavar to file his Affidavit in this Petition. It was the Collector of Mumbai who was directed to file Affidavit. It is thus apparent that, Mr. Dilip Rayannavar has usurped the powers of Collector of Mumbai. By filing such Affidavit, he has undermined the Authority of this Court. Consequently, he has not only interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings, but has also intentionally interfered and obstructed the administration of justice.”
Case Title : Ibrahim Babubhai Chokiya & Ors. v. M/s Westinrely Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal From Order (ST.) No. 27813 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 377
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that original members of a housing society who sought additional area in a redevelopment project on payment did not become "allottees" under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) merely because they soufght excess area.
It restored a civil suit filed by members of a Goregaon housing society after holding that the grievances raised in the plaint, including allegations of fraudulent allotment, suppression of sanctioned plans and misrepresentation, were not disputes that RERA authorities are empowered to adjudicate.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the plaint did not disclose a promoter-allottee relationship and that it sought civil remedies which RERA authorities cannot grant.
"There is no sale of free sale component of shop premises by the Defendant No. 2 in order to establish a promoter-allottee relationship. It is also difficult to accept that only in respect of the excess area, the Plaintiffs can be construed as allottees within the meaning of Section 2(d) of RERA Act.", the court ruled.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
RERA Cannot Treat Temple Deity and Registered Trust As Separate Entities: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Shankar Ji Maharaj Trust
Case Number : Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 35 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 51
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an order directing registration of a residential-cum-commercial project proposed by Shankar Ji Maharaj Trust after ruling that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) could not reject the application by treating the temple deity and the registered public trust managing the temple's affairs as separate entities.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal upheld the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order directing registration of the trust's 'Shree Shankar Ji Niwas' project at Patan in the Jabalpur district.
"The distinction drawn by the Authority between the Temple (deity) and the Trust is legally unsustainable. A temple deity, being a juristic person, remains a minor in the eyes of law and must act through a lawful management agency. A duly registered Public Trust is the legally recognized face of the deity. The revenue records showing the Temple's name are inherently represented by the registered Trust. Therefore, the Authority committed a grave jurisdictional error by overriding the Registrar's final orders," the court held.
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 53/2022 & FAO (COMM) 91/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a homebuyer can claim compensation for delayed possession through arbitration even though remedies are also available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“Merely because the Respondent elected to invoke the arbitration agreement instead of pursuing remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or RERA, it cannot be deprived of compensation otherwise legally payable for delayed possession The substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Act of 1872, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and RERA statutes provides additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcement of that right.,” the court observed.
It held that the substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while RERA and the Consumer Protection Act provide additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcing that right.
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed two appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd. and upheld arbitral awards in favour of homebuyer Asha Saini. The arbitrator had awarded compensation at 15% per annum for the delay in handing over possession of two flats.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Telangana REAT
Telangana REAT Upholds Order To Refund ₹36.58 Lakh To Homebuyers For Same Plot Sold To Third Party
Case Title : Sandeep Kumar & Anr. v. M/s Amacon Developers & Ors.
Case Number : T.A. No. 99 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 55
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order directing Amacon Developers to refund ₹36.58 lakh with 10.75% annual interest to two homebuyers after it sold the same plot to a third party despite an earlier agreement with them.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed the buyers' appeal against the October 16, 2025 order of the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Authority had directed Amacon to refund the amount with interest from April 9, 2021.
The tribunal held that Amacon could not claim to have acted merely as an agent. It had entered into the agreement as vendor while claiming ownership of the plot, making its conduct that of a promoter under Section 2(zk) of RERA.
“From a perusal of the entire material available on record, it is established that the conduct of respondent No.1 cannot be considered that of a mere agent. On the contrary, his actions are indicative of those of a promoter within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the Act.”, the tribunal noted.
Case Title : M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited v. Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : T.A. No. 8 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 49
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a homebuyer who voluntarily cancels a flat booking does not lose the status of an allottee merely because a cancellation deed has been executed.
It held that the allottee continues to retain that status until the developer refunds the entire agreed-upon amount.
A bench of Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar upheld the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority's direction requiring Aliens Developers Private Limited to refund the remaining ₹2 lakh to homebuyer Bakki Sneha.
The tribunal later disposed of the appeal after noting that the refund had been made and rejecting the developer's objections.
"The cancellation of allotment becomes final only when the entire refund amount is remitted back to the complainant as agreed. Since the cancellation has not attained its finality, the 2nd respondent/complainant continues to be recognized as an allottee, rendering the appellant's contention that the 2nd respondent/complainant has ceased to be an allottee untenable.", the tribunal ruled.
Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.5 Lakh Penalty Over Extra Clubhouse Floor, Revised Plan
Case Title Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP and Others v Neelima Vanguru
Case Number T.A. No. 35 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 69
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld a ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed on Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP for constructing an additional floor in the clubhouse without obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the allottees and failing to upload the revised building plan on the RERA website.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed the appeal filed by the promoter and two landowners. It upheld the Telangana RERA order imposing the penalty under Sections 60 and 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for contraventions of Sections 11 and 14.
Telangana REAT Says Promoter Cannot Alter Possession Date, Dismisses 31 Appeals By Vasavi Realtors
Case Title M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi & connected matters
Case Number T.A. Nos. 17 to 47 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 66
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 9 September held that extension of a real estate project's registration does not automatically extend the possession timeline agreed with homebuyers, and a promoter cannot unilaterally alter the contractual possession date without their consent.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed 31 appeals filed by Vasavi Realtors LLP against Telangana RERA orders directing it to pay delay interest to homebuyers in its “Vasavi Lake City-West” project at Hafeezpet. The Tribunal observed:
“However, we are of the considered view that extension of registration of a project does not automatically mean that the due date for completion of the project as per the respective agreements of sale also get extended. The agreement of sale is a legally enforceable document under Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the promoter cannot unilaterally alter the date for handing over possession unless both the parties agreed to change the due date of handing over of possession of the flat.”
Tamil Nadu REAT
Case Title : The Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. P. Malathi
Case Number : Appeal No. 70 of 2026 & M.A. No. 194 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 58
On 24 August, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) set aside a direction of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) requiring the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to provide water treatment equipment to all 133 flats in its Higher Income Group (HIG) housing project.
A Coram comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu held that relief sought by an individual allottee cannot be extended to other flat owners who had not filed the complaint and partly allowed the Housing Board's appeal. The Bench observed:
“With regard to the provision of Water Treatment Equipment for each Flat, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, out of 133 Flats, only the respondent had filed the complaint seeking for the Water Treatment Equipment. In such case, giving a direction to the appellant Board to provide the Water Treatment Equipment for all the Flats, cannot stand. Accordingly, the same is set aside.”
Homebuyer Cannot Seek Mental Agony Rent Claims After Declining Possession: Tamil Nadu REAT
Case Title : Jerry Fuller V. v. M/s. Casa Grande Grace Private Limited
Case Number : Appeal No. 10 of 2026 & M.A. No. 30 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 52
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 22 July held that a homebuyer who failed to proceed with registration and take possession after the developer offered the apartment could not claim compensation for mental agony, rent and misleading advertisements.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babut partly allowed an appeal filed by Jerry Fuller against Casa Grande Grace Private Limited, while awarding him Rs. 3 lakh for delayed possession and Rs. 50,000 towards litigation expenses. It observed:
“The appellant/complainant finding fault with the respondent/promoter, avoided the registration. In such circumstances, the claim made by the appellant/complainant that he is entitled for the compensation under various heads is not sustainable and the respondent/promoter carried out the construction as per the brochure, the approved plan and the Construction Agreement. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant is not sustainable.”
TNREAT Upholds ₹2.36 Lakh Refund Against Arun Excello, Reiterates Promoter Cannot Sell Stilt Parking
Case Title : Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.
Case Number : Appeal No. 31 of 2026 and M.A. No. 95 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 72
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT) on 16 September reiterated that a promoter cannot sell or separately charge for a reserved car parking space in the stilt area of a residential building.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu upheld Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's (TNRERA) direction requiring Arun Excello Constructions LLP to refund Rs. 2.36 lakh collected from homebuyer Meenakshi S. towards covered parking in its “Compact Homes – Narmada” project. The Tribunal observed:
“As per the aforesaid judgment, stilt parking space could not be sold as it is not a saleable area and the appellant does not have any right to sell the car parking in the stilt area.”
Tamil Nadu REAT Upholds Refusal To Remove Sobha VP From RERA Complaint At Preliminary Stage
Case Title : Sabarinath K.N. v. Sobha Westhill Owners Association & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. 41 of 2026 with M.A. No. 109 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 46
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's decision refusing to remove Sobha Limited Vice President Sabarinath K.N. from a complaint filed by the Sobha Westhill Owners Association over the Sobha Westhill residential project.
A tribunal comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Members K. Babu and Selvi Apoorva, I.A.S. (Retd.), dismissed Sabarinath K.N.'s appeal. It held that the issue of his liability cannot be decided at the preliminary stage where the pleadings contain specific allegations regarding his role.
The tribunal observed, "When the 1st respondent had specifically stated in the counter that the appellant and the other respondents have violated the provisions of Section 11(3) and 12 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by not providing the approved plans and layout plans with specifications to the members of the 1st respondent Association and also the terms of Construction Agreement and that the respondents constructed the common amenities meant for the exclusive usage of the allottees in the lands gifted to the Corporation of Coimbatore. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there were no specific pleadings against the appellant in the complaint and hence the name of the appellant should be struck off from the complaint, cannot be accepted."
Tamil Nadu REAT Directs Prestige To Hand Over Service Plots To Villa Owners' Association
Case Title : M/s Prestige South City Holdings v. Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association & Anr.; Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association v. Prestige South City Holdings & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 33 & 37 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 60
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 2 September partly allowed an appeal filed by the Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association and directed Prestige South City Holdings and Ratnavara Developers LLP to hand over two service plots in the villa project within two months.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu noted that a developer and landowner cannot retain service plots earmarked for common use in a sanctioned layout on the basis of an arbitral award to which the villa owners' association was not a party. The Tribunal observed:
“The Villa owners purchased the Villas as per the CMDA sanctioned plan. The sanctioned plan clearly mandates that all common areas shall not be utilized otherwise than as indicated in the sanctioned plan. Further, in the Arbitration proceedings, the appellant Association was not a party and the findings of the Arbitration proceedings in which the appellant Association was not a party shall not bind them. The land owner or the builder cannot be allowed to violate the sanctioned plan. In such circumstances, service Plot Nos.4 & 5 (II), which form part of the approved layout in the sanctioned plan, cannot be utilized or retained by the 1st respondent.”
Haryana REAT
No Formal Builder-Buyer Agreement Needed To Establish Promoter-Allottee Relationship: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Dr. Seema Jain & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe Ltd. & Anr. (and connected appeal)
Case Number : Appeal No. 512 of 2022 and Appeal No. 574 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 54
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that a promoter-allottee relationship can exist even without a formal builder-buyer agreement or a specific unit number.
According to the tribunal, acceptance and retention of payment, along with records linking the transaction to a defined plot size and consideration, can be enough to establish such a relationship.
The tribunal dismissed cross-appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd., Robust Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and the two homebuyers. It upheld the direction to allot the buyers a similar unit in Phase III or IV of “Omaxe City Centre, Faridabad” at the original allotment price, along with delay-possession charges.
“Even though no formal agreement or specific unit number was assigned, the conduct of the promoters in retaining the amount and reflecting the transaction against a defined plot size and consideration establishes a valid promoter-allottee relationship,” the tribunal observed.
The order was passed by Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Judicial Member Dr. Virender Parshad on August 7, 2026.
Adjudicating Officer Cannot Hear Complaints Seeking Project Development Reliefs: Haryana REAT
Case Title : St. Patricks Realty Private Limited v. Neha Prasad & Ors. And Connected Appeals.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 08, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 42
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an Adjudicating Officer under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot entertain complaints seeking directions for development works such as the construction of a boundary wall or roads along with compensation claims.
It ruled that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority.
The tribunal observed, "The Adjudicating Officer is vested with limited jurisdiction, primarily to adjudicate compensation under specific provisions of the Act. Therefore, such reliefs could not have been directly considered by the Adjudicating Officer."
A bench of Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan allowed appeals filed by St. Patricks Realty Private Limited against orders of the Adjudicating Officer.
The tribunal further observed, "The objection raised by the appellant-promoter regarding maintainability goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer. Such an issue ought to be decided at the threshold before proceeding further in the matter.
Limitation Act Doesn't Apply To RERA Complaints: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Emaar India Limited v. Poonam Goel & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : Appeal No. 946 of 2024 and connected appeals
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 41
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) has recently held that complaints filed before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot be dismissed as time-barred merely because they were filed after possession was handed over.
It ruled that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not prescribe any limitation period for such complaints. The tribunal also held that homebuyers do not lose their right to seek compensation for delayed possession after executing conveyance deeds.
The tribunal, comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan, dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Emaar India Ltd. and Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd.
It upheld orders directing the developers to pay delay compensation to homebuyers in the Gurgaon Greens and Orchard Avenue projects.
"The Act neither incorporates nor makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation Act to complaints instituted before the Authority. In the absence of any express legislative mandate, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat a remedy created under a legislation enacted for protection of allottees and regulation of the real estate sector," the tribunal ruled.
Valid Possession Offer Before Due Date Bars Homebuyer's Delay Compensation: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Mrs. Urmila Kumari Kadam v. M/s Y. B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. 696 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 62
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 31 August held that a homebuyer cannot claim delayed-possession charges where the promoter made a valid offer of possession before the stipulated possession date, even if physical possession was handed over later.
A Bench comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan dismissed an appeal filed by homebuyer Urmila Kumari Kadam and upheld the Gurugram Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order refusing delayed-possession charges against Y.B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Nimai Developers. It held:
“The promoters made offer of possession to the allottee on 01.04.2023, which constitutes valid offer of possession. The Authority rightly observed that as 'valid offer of possession' was given to the allottee, she is not entitled for any delay possession charges.”
Odisha REAT
Case Title : M/s ODI-Tech Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Oditech Pride Buyers Association & Ors
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 60 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 50
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) has upheld an Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) order directing ODI-Tech Properties Pvt. Ltd. to maintain the common areas of its 'Oditech Pride' housing project without collecting maintenance charges from homebuyers.
It held that the developer must continue to do so until management is handed over to the Oditech Pride Buyers Association.
"The learned ORERA's direction to the appellant to maintain the common areas without collecting maintenance charges from the allottees is justified as the delay in handing over of the maintenance of the common areas to the respondent no.1-association is due to the inability of the appellant to obtain the occupancy certificate and register the transfer of common areas to the association of allottees," the tribunal observed.
Rural Project Promoters Cannot Avoid RERA Merely By Relying On Pre-RERA Sale Deeds: Odisha REAT
Case Title : Reeta Structurals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Manmath Kumar Pradhan & Anr.
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 123 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 44
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 6 July held that execution of sale deeds before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) came into force does not conclusively establish completion of a project, and a promoter cannot claim exemption from RERA merely on that basis.
A Bench comprising Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das dismissed an appeal filed by Reeta Structurals Pvt. Ltd. and its directors against an Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) order directing completion of pending amenities, obtaining of a valid occupancy certificate, formation of an association of allottees and handing over of common areas in the company's “Reeta Valley Apartment” project at Gudiapokhari Chhak, Pipili, Puri. It observed:
"As provision of the ODA Act, 1982 is not applicable to the projects in rural areas and mere executions of a number of sale deeds in respect of the flats of the project are not conclusive proof regarding completion of the present project prior to the commencement of the RERA Act, we think it appropriate to follow the views of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.62/2023 and O.A. No.48/2024 which are based on the guidelines of a Govt. notification having retrospective effect."
Odisha REAT Sets Aside RERA's ₹7 Lakh Penalty Over Notice Served At Wrong Address
Case Title : Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA)
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 22 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 45
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has ruled that an ex parte penalty imposed by the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) cannot be sustained where notice was served at the wrong address.
It consequently set aside a ₹7 lakh penalty imposed on Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das held that the company had been denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard because ORERA had issued notice to an incorrect address. The Tribunal said this violated the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal observed, "'Audi alterem partem' is the sinequanon of observance of principle of natural justice. Right of being heard is an essential condition precedent for effective adjudication of the lis. Therefore, breach of principle of natural justice has caused prejudice to the affected party. Therefore, as a necessary corollary the affected party i.e. the appellant is legally entitled to be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing by the learned ORERA."
Rajasthan REAT
RERA Doesn't Give Homebuyers Right To Insist On Preferred Flat Or Block: Rajasthan REAT
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. 26/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 47
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not confer any statutory right upon an allottee to insist on allotment of a preferred apartment, block or location. It held that such entitlement depends on the contractual terms agreed between the parties.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhishthir Sharma dismissed an appeal filed by Rail Vihar Phase-III homebuyer Rakesh Kumar Sharma against the Union of India and the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO).
It observed:
"It is clear from the above text that no request for allotment of any specific dwelling unit or a floor shall be entertained and allotment of dwelling units shall be made by computerized draw of lots; meaning thereby, the particular unit in a particular block cannot be claimed by any allottee as a right. It is noted that the RERA Act, 2016 not mandated about any choice of Apartment or Unit. It will depend on agreed terms & conditions between the parties."
Case Title : Air Force Naval Housing Board v. Sukhveer Singh Shekhawat (and connected matters)
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 197/2025, 201/2025, 62/2026, and 65/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 48
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently refused to allow the Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) to pay homebuyers delay interest at 3% instead of the statutory rate, reiterating that, as a registered promoter under RERA, it cannot deviate from the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhishthir Sharma dismissed four cross-appeals filed by AFNHB and two allottees.
It upheld the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order directing AFNHB to pay delay interest at 10.90% per annum. It also rejected its plea to exclude a 22-month delay caused by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) stop-work notices.
Relying on its earlier decision in Air Force Naval Housing Board v. Arpita Jain Garg, the Tribunal observed:
"As per finding of Question No.3 in earlier decided Appeal No.139/2024 on 25/10/2024, the appellant-AFNHB is also not competent to deviate from the provisions of the RERA Rules, 2017. Resultantly, alternative prayer regarding award of 3% delay interest is also not acceptable."
Maharashtra REAT
Failed Conciliation Report Cannot Be Basis For Deciding RERA Complaints: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Clan City Welfare Association & 3 Ors. and connected appeals
Case Number : M.A. No. 580/26 in Appeal No. AT006/00517/2026 and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 56
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 5 August held that once conciliation between a promoter and homebuyers fails, the conciliation panel's report cannot form the basis for deciding their complaints because the panel's role is confined to facilitating an amicable settlement.
A Bench comprising Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara partly allowed Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd.'s stay applications and permitted the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to decide the complaints afresh on their merits without relying on the Special Conciliation Panel's report. It held:
“Bare perusal of the said provision would make it abundantly clear that, said provision is to facilitate amicable conciliation of dispute between the promoters and the allottees through dispute settlement forums set up by the consumer or promoter associations. If there is no amicable conciliation of the dispute between the promoters and allottees through a dispute settlement forum, in that case, accepting such report and findings would be contrary to the legislative mandate and intent reflected in said provision.”
Accepting Delayed Possession Does Not Waive Homebuyer's Right To Delay Interest: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Mahadappa Panchgalle
Case Number : Appeal No. AT006000000093932 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 51
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently ruled that a homebuyer's right to claim interest for delayed possession does not disappear merely because the buyer later takes possession or the project's RERA registration is extended.
The tribunal observed that accepting possession does not amount to waiver of the accrued right unless the homebuyer consciously and expressly relinquishes it.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice S. S. Shinde and Member (A) Dr. Rajagopal Devara made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd. against a Maharashtra RERA order granting interest to a homebuyer for delayed possession of a flat in the “Levels” project at Malad (East), Mumbai.
The tribunal observed, “Acceptance of possession thereafter does not amount to waiver of such accrued statutory right unless there is a conscious express relinquishment thereof, which is absent in the present case.”
Case Title RA Residences Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. RA Associates & Ors.
Case Number Appeal No. AT06/00804/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 70
On 16 September, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) penalised RA Associates and its partners, promoters of the “RA Residences” project in Mumbai, with a penalty equivalent to 2% of the project cost for altering the disclosed project plan and increasing the Floor Space Index (FSI) of the commercial building without obtaining the prior informed consent of the allottees.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande also directed the promoters to execute conveyance of the residential building within 60 days, holding that promoters cannot indefinitely postpone conveyance by relying on the possibility of procuring additional FSI or Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The Tribunal held:
“...In fact, once the FSI available in the project property is exhausted, the promoters are obligated to execute the conveyance and are not entitled to any further FSI, if available, due to change in policy within the property or procured from elsewhere.”
Builder Can't Terminate Allotment For Non-Payment Without Executing Agreement For Sale: MahaREAT
Case Title Manojkumar Singh v. Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number Appeal No. AT006000000204882 of 2024, arising from Complaint No. CC006000000282178 of 2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 65
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MHREAT) on 7 September held that a builder cannot accept more than 10% of the consideration for a flat without first executing and registering an Agreement for Sale under Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande further held that a builder cannot terminate a homebuyer's allotment for non-payment when the builder itself has failed to execute the Agreement for Sale and imposed a Rs. 10 lakh penalty on the builder for violating Section 13. The Tribunal held:
“The allotment letter and payment receipts demonstrate the existence of a valid and concluded contract between the parties. The Respondent having accepted substantial payment towards the flat, could not have failed to execute and register the Agreement for Sale.”
MHREAT Rejects Homebuyers' Plea To Condon 266-Day Delay, Says Litigant Can't Blame Advocate Entirely
Case Title Shashank Vengasarkar & Anr v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case Number M.A. No. 1357/26 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT06/00334/2026, arising from Complaint No. CC006000000354526
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 64
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MHREAT) on 10 September dismissed a homebuyers' application seeking condonation of a 266-day delay in filing an appeal against a MahaRERA order concerning a flat purchased from Larsen & Toubro.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that a litigant cannot seek condonation of delay by placing the entire blame on their advocate. Further, that negligence, inaction or lack of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay. It noted:
“...we are of the view that the applicants cannot throw entire blame on the Advocate and therefore, it cannot be taken as a ground for condonation of delay.”
Maharashtra REAT Orders Demolition Of Additional Building Over Lack Of Homebuyer Consent
Case Title : Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Parshwanath Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006000000345557 & AT006000000345563 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 63
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has ordered the demolition of an additional building in the Parshvadhara project at Belavali, Thane, after finding that it was not disclosed to homebuyers and could not be constructed without their prior informed consent.
The tribunal directed the promoters to demolish the additional building at their own expense within 90 days. It also ordered restoration of the playground, garden, children's playground, recreation ground and other open spaces in accordance with the 2015 sanctioned plan, brochure and other disclosures made to the allottees.
The order was passed by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande on September 7, 2026.
Forfeiture Clause Cannot Be Mechanically Enforced on Cancellation Of Flat Booking: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Godrej Skyline Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Joy Salve
Case Number : Appeal No. AT005000000134212 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 61
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a developer cannot mechanically enforce a forfeiture clause to retain the entire amount paid by a homebuyer on cancellation of his booking.
This is particularly so when no Agreement for Sale was executed or registered between the parties.
Rejecting the developer's claim that its contractual terms allowed it to keep the payment, the tribunal observed,
“We are unable to accept the contention of the Appellant/Promoter that the mere existence of such a clause confers a right upon it to forfeit the entire amount paid by the Respondent/Allottee as part consideration amount. A forfeiture clause cannot be enforced mechanically, particularly where the transaction has not finally culminated in execution or registration of an Agreement for Sale. Further, the material placed on record does not demonstrate the financial loss corresponding to the entire amount sought to be forfeited.”
Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Harathi Prakash Nalla & Anr. v. Secretary, Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 167 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 57
On 24 August, the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) set aside an order dismissing a complaint against BCV Developers Pvt. Ltd. and directed the developer to pay interest as compensation for delayed possession and non-completion of promised amenities at the “Juniper at Brigade Orchards” project in Devanahalli.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. observed that principles laid down in consumer law concerning the rights of allottees and consequences of a promoter's failure to fulfil contractual and statutory obligations can also be applied in RERA proceedings, where they are consistent with the scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It held:
“It is not in dispute that, prior to the enactment of the RERA Act, aggrieved Allottees were required to seek redressal of their grievances primarily through the Consumer Forum. Even after the enactment of the RERA Act, an aggrieved allottee is not precluded from approaching the Consumer Forum for appropriate relief, subject to the law governing the exercise of such remedies.”
Mental Agony Compensation Under RERA Must Be Based On Actual Hardship: Karnataka REAT
Case Title : M/s. Adarsh Nivaas Private Limited v. Anil Kumar Kurra & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 120/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 43
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) on 8 July held that compensation for mental agony under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be awarded mechanically and must depend on factors such as the period of delay, financial burden on the allottee, promoter's conduct and the actual hardship suffered.
Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N partly allowed Adarsh Nivaas Private Limited's appeal and reduced the compensation for rental loss from Rs. 11.87 lakh to Rs. 7.84 lakh and compensation for mental agony from Rs. 4 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh, while upholding the homebuyer's entitlement to compensation for delayed possession. The Bench observed:
“The determination must necessarily depend upon the facts of each case, including the period of delay, whether the allottee was compelled to bear the dual burden of payment of rent and EMIs, the conduct of the promoter, whether repeated assurances were held out and breached, the age and personal circumstances of the Allottee and the nature and extent of the inconvenience, hardship and mental distress actually suffered.”
Co-op Society Without Land Or Layout For Real Estate Project Not Promoter Under RERA: Karnataka REAT
Case Title V. Suresh Kumar v BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd and Anr
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 3/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 68
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that a housing co-operative society that had not acquired any land for development and had no project in existence could not be treated as a “Promoter” under RERA.
A complaint seeking relief under the Act was therefore not maintainable before Karnataka RERA.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the BSNL Employees Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
The tribunal held, “Undisputedly, the Respondent No.1/Co-operative Society has not acquired any land for development and consequently it does not fall into the definition of Promoter and there is no project in existence let alone Complainant could be called as an Allottee.”
Builder Cannot Compel Registration Of Time-Barred Agreement For Sale: Karnataka REAT
Case Title Sobha Ltd v Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors
Case Number : Appeal No. K-REAT 81 of 2025 with Appeal No. K-REAT 102 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 67
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a promoter cannot require the Sub-Registrar to register an Agreement for Sale presented beyond the four-month period prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N observed, “in view of the statutory bar contained in section 23 of the Registration Act, the Promoter cannot compel the Sub-Registrar to register an Agreement to Sell if it is presented beyond the period prescribed under the said Act.”
The ruling came in appeals filed by Sobha Ltd and two allottees of its Sobha Sentosa project in Bengaluru.
Case Title : Goyal Hariyana Realty v. Mrs. Vinaya & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 42/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 59
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a settlement deed covering disputes existing when it was signed cannot be treated as an unconditional waiver of claims over construction defects discovered after the homebuyers took possession.
The tribunal observed that the settlement was confined to claims “subsisting” between the parties when the deed was executed. Its broad language could not be construed as giving up claims arising from defects discovered later and which were not within the parties' contemplation at the time of settlement.
A bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. delivered the judgment on September 1, 2026.
The tribunal dismissed an appeal by Goyal Hariyana Realty and upheld an order directing the builder and the landowner to jointly pay ₹6 lakh as compensation to two homebuyers for alleged construction defects, besides ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
The tribunal observed,
“Consequently, the settlement of the then subsisting disputes cannot, merely by virtue of the general language employed therein, be construed as an unconditional relinquishment of claims arising from defects which were discovered subsequently and which were not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering into the settlement.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Kerala RERA
Kerala RERA Awards ₹5 Lakh To Homebuyer After Apartment Lost 'Brand New' Status Due To Prior Use
Case Title : Tomy Abraham v. Sobha Limited & Others
Case Number : CCP No. 06/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KL) 126
The Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Sobha Limited and Puravankara Limited to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to an NRI homebuyer.
It found that the developers had used his apartment for their official non-residential purposes before handing it over, causing it to lose its promised "brand new" status.
Adjudicating Officer K.S. Sarath Chandran partly allowed the complaint filed by Ernakulam resident, Tomy Abraham. The authority found that photographs placed on record clearly showed the apartment being used by the developers' staff and construction labourers before the occupancy certificate was obtained.
It awarded ₹3 lakh for the unauthorized use of the apartment, ₹2 lakh for mental agony, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. The authority also directed that the compensation would carry interest at 16.65% per annum from July 6, 2024 until recovery.
The authority observed, "From the photographs of Ext. A5 series it is clearly evident that the apartment allotted to the Complainant was used by the Respondents for the use of their staff or construction labourers. The torned carpets, Almirahs, tables, racks etc can be seen from the photographs. Electricity is also provided in that apartment and AiC and fan are aiso seen installed in that apartment before obtaining Occupancy Ceftificate, dated 3L.L2.2024 and it shows that the Respondents had used the apartment of the Complainant for their official unresidential use. Therefore, it is evident from Ext. A5 series and evidence of CW1 that the Respondents had utilized the apartment of the Complainant, allotted to the Complainant after Ext. A1 and A2 by their staff/labours and it lost his brand new status which amounts violation of A1 and A2 agreements"
Bihar RERA
Using Fake Registration Number To Market Unregistered Project Is 'Serious Fraud': Bihar RERA
Case Title : Authorised Representative of RERA v. M/s Matrichhaya Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/SM/582/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 128
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA) on 5 August held that using a fabricated RERA registration number to advertise, develop and sell plots in an unregistered project constitutes a grave and wilful violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act), and imposed a Rs. 90 lakh penalty on Matrichhaya Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Chairman Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order, holding that the promoter deliberately used a fake registration number to create the false impression that its project was duly registered and to deceive prospective buyers. He held:
“The Authority observes that the respondent has deliberately mentioned a fabricated RERA Registration Number without obtaining registration of the project under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Such an act is a grave and wilful violation of the Act and amounts to a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive prospective allottees by creating a false impression that the project is duly registered with the Authority. The conduct of the respondent clearly reflects mala fide intent, demonstrates a conscious disregard for the statutory provisions, and constitutes a serious fraud upon innocent homebuyers as well as the Authority. Such misconduct cannot be condoned.”
Civil Remedies Under Real Estate Act Do Not Bar Criminal Action Against Builders: Bihar RERA
Case Title : Malvika Singh v. M/s Bhootesh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/Exe/180/2025 (arising out of RERA/CC/08/2025)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 117
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 25 June held that remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 do not prevent a homebuyer from pursuing criminal action where the facts disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence.
Chairman Vivek Kumar Singh directed issuance of a Public Demand Recovery Certificate to recover Rs. 11.20 lakh along with applicable interest in execution proceedings initiated by Malvika Singh against Bhootesh Construction Pvt. Ltd. concerning its Prakriti Vihar project. He also ordered the Secretary, RERA, Bihar, to forward details of all execution and complaint cases against the builder to the Enforcement Directorate, Bihar. He observed:
“This Authority is conscious that proceedings under the RERA Act are regulatory, adjudicatory and compensatory in nature. At the same time, it is equally well settled that the existence of a civil, contractual or statutory remedy does not exclude recourse to criminal law where the facts disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence.”
Bihar RERA Holds Section 39 Of RERA Act Cannot Be Used To Review Liability On Merits
Case Title : Kumod Kumar v. M/s Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/368/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 134
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA) on 31 August held that rectification under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) cannot be used to materially alter a substantive finding of liability, as doing so would amount to reviewing the original order on merits.
Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh rejected an application filed by Kumod Kumar, Complainant, a former director of Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd., seeking deletion of his name and liability from an earlier refund order concerning the Ramagya Residency project. The Authority observed:
“Rectification cannot be invoked for re-hearing the original matter, re-appreciating evidence, reconsidering disputed questions of fact, taking a different view on materials already considered, or substituting a fresh decision in place of the decision already rendered.”
Telengana RERA
Case Title : Shridevi Valluri v. Aparna Constructions & Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 111 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 125
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has held that a subsequent purchaser holding a registered sale deed qualifies as an allottee for the limited purposes of proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
It held that a promoter cannot avoid its statutory obligation to hand over possession merely because the apartment was acquired through a subsequent transfer.
Partly allowing a complaint against Aparna Constructions & Estates Pvt. Ltd., the Authority directed the promoter to hand over possession of an apartment in its Aparna Sarovar Zicon project within 30 days.
It clarified that the direction would remain subject to the outcome of pending civil and insolvency proceedings concerning the validity of the transfer documents.
The Authority, comprising Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu, observed: "Section 2(d) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 defines an “allottee” to expressly include a person who subsequently acquires an allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise. On the strength of the registered Sale Deed dated 21.09.2024, and for the limited purpose of determining the Respondent-promoter's statutory obligation to hand over possession in the present complaint, the Complainant satisfies the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act. Once a person falls within the definition of an allottee under Section 2(d) for the limited purposes of the Act, the promoter cannot avoid its statutory obligations merely on the ground that the allottee acquired the apartment by way of a subsequent registered transfer. The obligations imposed upon a promoter under the Act are statutory in nature and are not defeated merely because the original allottee has transferred his interest."
Direct Contract With Homebuyers Not A Precondition For Promoter Liability: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Salandra Mohan Babu & Ors. v. M/s Bharati Builders (Formerly Known as Sirisampada Estates & Builders) & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint Nos. 878/2025 - 885/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 131
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 25 August held that a promoter cannot avoid liability under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 merely because the promoter has no direct contract with homebuyers.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao held that promoter liability can arise from participation in a project's development, control over it, receipt or use of allottee funds, or commercial benefit from the project, and does not depend on the traditional doctrine of privity of contract. They observed:
“At the outset, this Authority observes that the RE(R&D) Act is not founded upon the narrow doctrine of privity of contract as understood under traditional civil jurisprudence. The RE(R&D) Act creates statutory obligations which operate independent of private contractual arrangements. The liability of a 'promoter' under RE(R&D) flows not merely from contractual execution but from participation in development, control over the project, share of saleable area, receipt or utilisation of allottee funds, and benefit derived from the project scheme.”
Homebuyers Cannot Shift Liability For Natural Growth On Vacant Plot After 7 Years: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Gopishetty Sreenivas v. M/s Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 380/2025/TGRERA
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 114
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 22 June held that homebuyers who accept vacant possession under a registered sale deed without objection cannot later hold developers liable for clearing natural rocks or wild trees after several years of inaction, as maintenance of an individual plot after handover lies with the plot owner and not the developer.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao partly disposed of a complaint against Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited, Suchirindia Projects Private Limited, Suchirindia Constructions Private Limited and Vasavi Nirmaan. The Authority observed:
“This Authority is further of the view that wild growth such as trees and shrubs on an open plot that has been left vacant for several years is a natural and foreseeable occurrence for which the developer cannot be held responsible, particularly after the lapse of seven years from the date of purchase. The maintenance and upkeep of an individual plot after its purchase and handover is the responsibility of the individual plot owner. The Complainant cannot, after allowing seven years to pass without taking any steps to develop the plot or maintain it, seek to hold the developer liable for the natural growth that has occurred on the vacant land in the intervening period.”
Case Title : J. Ravi Kishore v. Rakshit Agrawal & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 273/2025/TGRERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 127
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has held two registered real estate agents liable for facilitating the sale of a plot in the unregistered “Amber Homes” project at Mucherla village in Ranga Reddy district.
It also found that one of the agents, Madhirala Rosi Reddy, misrepresented himself as a "vendor/developer" without establishing any authority to do so.
A coram of Member Laxmi Narayana Jannu and Member K. Srinivasa Rao observed: “Respondent No. 2, being a registered real estate agent under Registration Nos. A02500001226 and A02500003146, nevertheless executed the Agreement of Sale dated 23.10.2024 in respect of the subject plot and thereby facilitated the sale of a plot in an unregistered real estate project.”
Flat Not Ready For Possession Without Basic Amenities Like Water, Electricity: Telengana RERA
Case Title : Sridhar Bagaluri & Anr. v. M/s Janapriya Projects Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No. 360/2025/TGRERA
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 141
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has ruled that a flat cannot be treated as ready for possession merely because construction is complete or an Occupancy Certificate has been obtained. Basic facilities such as potable water and electricity must also be available.
A bench comprising Member Laxmi Narayana Jannu and Member K. Srinivasa Rao imposed a ₹32.17 lakh penalty on Janapriya Projects Pvt. Ltd. for accepting booking money before registering its “Sitara at Janyapriya Lake Front” project. It also directed the developer to pay 10.70% annual interest for the delay in handing over lawful possession.
Haryana RERA
Case Title : Gaurav Joon v. JBG Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint Nos. 1072 - 1075 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 118
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has recently ruled that execution of a registered conveyance deed does not amount to lawful delivery of possession where the promoter has not obtained the statutory approvals required to make the property legally usable.
It ruled that merely transferring title does not absolve a builder of liability for delayed possession.
The ruling was delivered by Member Dr. Geeta Rathee Singh while allowing four complaints filed by homebuyer Gaurav Joon against JBG Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. over residential plots in the developer's "AMI Greens" project at Sector-3A, Bahadurgarh.
"Mere transfer of title, however, cannot automatically be equated with lawful delivery of possession where the project itself had not obtained the requisite completion approval from the competent authority. The statutory obligation of a promoter under the Act extends beyond execution of title documents and includes completion of the project in accordance with sanctioned plans and obtaining all necessary approvals before handing over possession. Because the allottee entered into a contract to purchase a fully developed plot rather than an unimproved tract of land the transfer is legally illusory ("a mere paper transfer") if the allottee is denied the ability to utilize the property due to the respondent's failure to obtain required statutory approvals.", the court ruled.
No Fixed Limitation For Compensation Claims, Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time: RERA Gurugram
Case Title : Shashi Rastogi & Anr. v. M/s S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 2934 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 143
The Gurugram Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) on 11 September held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not prescribe a specific time limit for an allottee to file a complaint seeking compensation, and whether a complaint was filed within a reasonable time must be determined in light of public policy.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held this while awarding Rs. 11.24 lakh compensation to Shashi Rastogi and Colonel Rajendra Kumar Rastogi (Retd.) against SS Group Pvt. Ltd. for loss of property appreciation, mental agony and litigation expenses arising from the developer's failure to deliver a flat in its “The Leaf” project at Sector 84-85, Gurugram. He held:
“I find weight in aforesaid submissions of the complainant. No time period has been prescribed by Act of 2016 within which a complaint seeking compensation can be filed. Public policy requires that a case, (complaint or civil) suit should be filed within reasonable time.”
Andhra Pradesh RERA
AP RERA Directs Anjani Projects To Hand Over Incomplete Project To Landowners After 12-Year Delay
Case Title : Dr. Bhuvanagiri Radha Madhavi & Ors. v. M/s. Anjani Projects & Ors.
Case Number : E.P. Nos. 47/2026 to 61/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (AP) 142
The Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (AP RERA) on 1 September directed Anjani Projects to hand over an incomplete real estate project to the landowners within 15 days, after finding that the developer had failed to complete the project for nearly 12 years.
A Bench comprising Members E. Rajasekhara Reddy and A. Jagannadha Rao passed the common order in execution petitions filed by the landowners against Anjani Projects, represented by its proprietor Kanupuru Seshavardhana Reddy, and Ponnavolu Prathima Reddy. The Authority held:
“The Development Agreement does not contain any provision entitling the respondents to insist upon execution of fresh or supplementary agreements after expiry of the contractual period as a condition precedent for completion of the project. Having voluntarily undertaken the contractual obligation to complete the project within the stipulated period, the respondents cannot indefinitely postpone completion of the project and thereafter impose fresh contractual conditions upon the complainants.”
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title : Shrinivas Gangadhar Pawar & 25 Other Homebuyers v. Mont Vert Elegance
Case Number : CC12600613 and 25 other connected complaints
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 120
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 20 July held that extension of a real estate project's registration does not change the possession date agreed between a promoter and homebuyers in a registered agreement for sale, and any modification to the possession date must be made through a registered deed.
Member Mahesh Pathak partly allowed a batch of 26 complaints filed by homebuyers against Pune-based Mont Vert Elegance's "Mont Vert Belcreek" project, rejecting the promoter's contention that extension of the project registration till 31 December 2028 shifted the contractually agreed possession date of 31 May 2025. The Authority observed:
“Moreso, by obtaining extension for the project registration (with or without the consent of the allottees of this project), the respondent promoter cannot try to modify the date of possession mentioned in the said registered agreements for sale, which in fact are public documents and the same needs to be changed by way of a registered deed. Hence, the MahaRERA does not find any merits in the aforesaid issue raised by the respondent promoter.”
Routine Business, Approval Delays Not Force Majeure For Delayed Home Possession: Maharashtra RERA
Case Title : Anish Charudatta Galgate & Anr. v. Rejoice Homes LLP & Ors.7
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12504437
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 116
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently ruled that a promoter cannot justify delaying possession of a home by citing routine business and regulatory issues.
These include labour shortages, supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, revised building plans, additional FSI, suspension of FSI/TDR approvals, and proposed road widening.
Partly allowing a complaint by two Pune homebuyers, the Authority directed Rejoice Homes LLP and its co-promoters to pay interest at SBI MCLR plus 2% on the actual amount paid towards the flat consideration, which the homebuyers said was about ₹34.98 lakh. The interest will run from January 1, 2025 until possession is offered with an Occupation Certificate (OC).
MahaRERA Member Mahesh Pathak passed the order on July 6, 2026.
"Mere submission of the respondent of shortage of labour, disruption of the supply chain or general difficulties during the pandemic are not sufficient to claim protection under Section 6 of the RERA. Further, as far as the other reasons cited by the promoter for the said delay, such as revised building plans, additional FSI, suspension of FSI/TDR approvals, redesign of the said project and the proposed road widening by PMC, are part of the normal process of project development. However, these are business and regulatory issues which every promoter is expected to deal with. Hence, they do not amount to force majeure under Section 6 of the RERA."
Rajasthan RERA
Rajasthan RERA Says Cancelled Allotment Requires Refund, Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Homebuyers
Case Title : Seema Devi & Ors. v. Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-O-2024-7211
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 140
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 16 September awarded Rs. 1 lakh compensation to homebuyers in the “Surya Residency” project after promoter Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd. retained their Rs. 1.45 lakh booking amount despite cancelling the allotment.
Adjudicating Officer R.S. Kulhari passed the order on a compensation claim by Seema Devi and other homebuyers, directing the promoter to pay Rs. 1 lakh for retaining their booking amount after cancellation of the allotment. He held:
“In case the unit was cancelled, the promoter was supposed to refund the amount after deducting the administrative charges, if any, but no such communication has been made. The respondent has been utilizing the funds after cancellation of the unit. Simultaneously, the complainants were deprived of this amount.”
Landowner Liable For Project Registration Despite Developer Agreement: Rajasthan RERA
Case Title Suo Motu v. K.D. Developers
Case Number F.15 (326) RJ/RERA/C/2024 (RAJ-RERA-Suo Motu-2026-77)
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 139
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a landowner cannot avoid statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, merely because a development agreement assigns construction and other development responsibilities to a developer.
The authority penalised developer Siddharth Landmark LLP and landowner Brajesh Saxena ₹1 lakh each for violating the registration requirement under the Act in connection with the unregistered multi-storey residential project “99 Avenue” in Jaipur. It also directed them to apply for registration of the project within 45 days.
Chairperson Veenu Gupta observed:
“The contractual allocation of particular development responsibilities to the developer cannot, by itself, absolve the landowner from the statutory obligations arising under the Act in respect of the project.”
Case Title : Meenu Purohit v. Govind Kripa Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : RAJ-RERA-C-N-2025-7847 and connected complaints
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 135
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a former shareholder and director of a promoter company who exited a real estate project and was subsequently allotted 20 flats in his individual capacity under agreements to sell qualifies as an “allottee” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Sudhir Kumar Sharma held that the documents executed after his exit established an allottee-promoter relationship, despite his earlier association with the company.
The authority observed, “The factum of purchase of 20 units solely by the complainant does not categorize him as an 'investor', and he still remains an allottee within the definition of Section 2(d) of the Act.”
Section 2(d) of the RERA Act defines an “allottee” as a person to whom a plot, apartment, or building has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by a promoter. Section 31 enables an aggrieved person to approach the authority with a complaint under the Act.
Tamil Nadu RERA
Allottee Cannot Claim Corpus Fund Refund After Handover To Residents' Association: Tamil Nadu RERA
Case Title : Saranya Jeyasundaram v. K.G. Foundations (P) Ltd. & Anr
Case Number : C.No.58 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 129
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) on 7 August held that an individual allottee cannot seek a refund of the corpus fund from a promoter after the promoter has handed over the corpus fund and maintenance accounts to the registered residents' association.
A Coram comprising Chairperson K. Phanindra Reddy and Members A. Nazir Ahamed and Reeta Harish Thakkar rejected a homebuyer's claim for an individual refund from K.G. Foundations (P) Ltd. in relation to the KG Chandra Vista project, while imposing a Rs. 10 lakh penalty on the developer for selling apartments without registering the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The Authority observed:
“As per the handing over letter dated 05.01.2021 the maintenance and corpus fund account of KG Chandravista Blocks A & B are handed over to the 2nd Respondent along with the enclosure of detailed statement of accounts and common area maintenance expenses. Therefore, the Complainant as the individual allottee cannot claim the refund of corpus fund from the Respondents. If any discrepancies in the statement of accounts relating to the corpus fund produced by the 1st Respondent, it is for the 2nd Respondent to raise the issue."
Tamil Nadu RERA Holds JDA Disputes Outside RERA Jurisdiction, Rejects Bennett Property's Complaint
Case Title : M/s Bennett Property Holdings Company Ltd. v. M/s PNB Techwaves Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : CCP No. /2026 in S.R. No. 38 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 119
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) on 15 July held that disputes arising from Joint Development Agreements (JDAs), their cancellation, business transfer arrangements and consequential construction agreements do not fall within its jurisdiction where they essentially concern commercial, monetary and development rights. Such disputes must be adjudicated by the Commercial Courts.
Adjudicating Officer Tmt. N. Uma Maheswari dismissed the complaint filed by Bennett Property Holdings Company Ltd. against PNB Techwaves Pvt. Ltd., PNB Exporters Pvt. Ltd., PNB Realty Ltd. and another company as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. She observed:
“Even this construction agreement upon which the complainant relies is an outcome of a pure monetary transaction and any dispute arising out of the breaches are triable by the Commercial courts only and not this Forum. Entering upon into a construction agreement alone as a consequence of either a business contract or money transaction within the Companies is to be tried by the Commercial courts which are the exclusive courts to try such matters.”
TNRERA Rejects Builder's 2027 Possession Date Plea After Earlier Handover Promise, Directs Interest
Case Title Namasivayam v Casa Grande Smart Values Homes Pvt Ltd and Others
Case Number R.C.P. No. 107 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 138
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) on 3 September held that a builder cannot rely on a distant contractual possession date when it had separately committed to an earlier handover through its own communications.
A Bench of Chairperson K. Phanindra Reddy with Members A. Nazir Ahamed and Reeta Harish Thakkar directed Casa Grande Smart Values Homes to pay delay interest to a homebuyer who had booked a villa in its Casagrand Divinity project in Chengalpattu. The Authority observed:
“...the Complainant is entitled for the interest for delay during the period from the promised date of handover till the actual date of handing over of the possession of the villa.”
Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Anil Kumar Kurra v. M/s Adarsh Nivas Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. CMP/00302/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 113
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Adarsh Nivas Pvt. Ltd. to pay ₹79.84 lakh as delay interest to a homebuyer. It also ordered the developer to complete Adarsh Palm Acres Phase-2, Part-B, with all promised amenities within 60 days.
The authority further directed the company to execute the sale deed and hand over possession after receiving the balance sale consideration. It held that the developer had failed to complete the project despite receiving a substantial part of the sale consideration.
Member K. V. Jayaram passed the order.
"It is the bounden duty and obligation on the part of the promoters to complete the project in all respects and in accordance with contract between the parties," the authority observed.
Standard-Form Agreement For Sale Cannot Waive Homebuyers' Right To Delay Interest: Karnataka RERA
Case Title Satyendra Kumar Singh & Sonika Kumari Singh v. Bharathiya Urban Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 01520/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 137
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has held that homebuyers do not lose their statutory right to compensation for delayed possession merely because they signed a standard-form Agreement for Sale.
It found that such contractual terms cannot defeat statutory protection where buyers had no real or effective opportunity to negotiate or alter them.
Chairman Rakesh Singh observed that "the Allottees, having entered into a standard-form Agreement for Sale prepared by the Promoter, cannot be presumed to have voluntarily waived or surrendered their statutory rights merely by signing the said Agreement. The fact that such a clause was incorporated as part of the standard contractual terms, without any real or effective opportunity for the Allottees to negotiate or alter the same, cannot operate to defeat the statutory protection afforded to them under the RERA Act."
K-RERA Says 2/3 Allottee Consent Needed For Changes Beyond Sale Agreement
Case Title : Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited |
Case Number: Complaint No. 00772/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 136
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has reiterated that consent from two-thirds of allottees is required only when a proposed alteration goes beyond what was mutually agreed in the contract.
Relying on an appellate tribunal ruling, the authority comprising Chairman Rakesh SIngh and Member GR Reddy ruled, “The requirement of consent of 2/3rd allottees arises only when there is an alteration beyond what was mutually agreed in the contract,” the Authority observed.
K-RERA made the observation while dismissing a complaint by the Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association seeking revocation of the registration of L&T Realty Developers Limited's Elara Celestia project and demolition of commercial buildings.
Punjab RERA
RWA-Member Maintenance Disputes Governed By Bye-Laws, Not RERA Act: Punjab RERA
Case Title : Leafstone Residents Welfare Association v. Daizy Dass & Another
Case Number : Complaint No. 0367 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 130
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) held on 14 August that disputes concerning recovery of maintenance charges between a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) and its members do not fall within the scope of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Such disputes concern the relationship between an association and its members and are governed by the association's registered bye-laws and applicable laws.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal dismissed a complaint filed by Leafstone Residents Welfare Association seeking recovery of unpaid maintenance dues from two residents, holding that the Authority could adjudicate disputes under the RERA Act only where they concerned promoters, allottees or real estate agents. The Authority observed:
“Maintenance charges paid in accordance with maintenance and service agreement are contractual in nature and paid in lieu of services provided by service provider. Therefore, the case of the complainant is not covered under any provision of RERD Act, 2016 or rules made thereunder. In this case, it is not within power of this authority to adjudicate the issues between a Residents Welfare Association and its members who are not promoter. The RERD Act, 2016 is applicable only inter-se issues relating to promoters, allottees and real estate agents.”
Punjab RERA Holds Private Property Sale Disputes Between Individuals Outside RERA Jurisdiction
Case Title : Gurcharan Kaur & Another v. Dheeraj Sharma
Case Number : GC No. 0411 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 115
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that disputes arising from private agreements to sell between individuals, where the seller is neither a promoter nor a real estate agent, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Dismissing a complaint filed by Gurcharan Kaur and Ramandeep Singh Bhatia seeking refund of the outstanding ₹13.20 lakh paid under an agreement to purchase a commercial plot from Mohali resident Dheeraj Sharma, the Authority held that the complainants had failed to establish that they were "allottees" under the Act and could not invoke RERA's adjudicatory jurisdiction.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed, "Here, the complainants have failed to satisfy that they are allottees of the project of the respondent and the seller is in default of its obligation. The overwhelming objective of RERA is to benefit allottees/promoters and protect them against the frauds committed by promoters in real estate projects. This is a case of purely between two private parties and does not come within preview of RERD Act, 2016."
Case Title: Rajesh Verma v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA)
Case Number : GC No. 0512/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 144
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that where both an allottee and a developer breach their respective obligations, neither side would ordinarily be entitled to specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.
The Authority, headed by Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal, directed the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) to refund ₹21 lakh deposited by the allottee with interest. The total amount payable was ₹43.68 lakh as on August 31, 2026.
Finding defaults on both sides, the Authority observed:
“There is foundational principle of equity—that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, that equity aids the vigilant and that equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. Here, both the allottee defaults in payments and the developer faults in timely handover. It is breach of vital terms or failed to perform on time and neither side typically qualifies for an order of specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.”
Case Title : Sh. Chinu Goyal v. M/s Barnala Builders
Case Number : GC No. 0126/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 133
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has ruled that although a developer had made payments described as assured returns to a homebuyer, those payments alone could not establish that it was contractually bound to pay a 12% annual return until possession.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed that the buyer had to establish the contractual basis for the claimed return, including its rate, period, and conditions. Earlier payments could not, by themselves, add such terms to or enlarge the Agreement for Sale.
The Authority observed, “However, the fact that payments were made does not, by itself, establish the precise contractual rate of 12%, the period for which such return was payable, the conditions attached thereto, or that the obligation continued until the date of possession. A payment made pursuant to a commercial understanding is not, by itself, sufficient to rewrite or enlarge the terms of the Agreement for Sale"
Assam RERA
Flat Owners' Association Can File RERA Complaint But Cannot Be Sued Under It: Assam RERA
Case Title : Shri Amar Gupta v. M/s Shakti Developers & Anr.
Case Number : Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2025/40
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (AS) 132
The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 21 August held that an association of allottees can file a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, but cannot be made a respondent in a complaint under the Act as it does not fall within the categories of 'promoter', 'allottee' or 'real estate agent'.
Chairperson P.K. Borthakur dismissed a complaint filed by commercial unit owner Amar Gupta against Shakti Square Housing Society over maintenance charges, water supply and access to common amenities at the Shakti Square project. The Bench observed:
“The Explanation appended to Section 31(1) provides that, 'for the purpose of this sub-section, 'person' shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force.' This Explanation operates only to enlarge the class of persons who may be treated as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file a complaint (i.e., on the complainant's side). It does not, and by its terms cannot, enlarge the three categories of respondent against whom a complaint may be directed. Had the Legislature intended an association of allottees to also be answerable to a complaint under Section 31, it would have said so expressly, as it did in respect of locus standi to complain. The deliberate inclusion of the association of allottees for one purpose, and its omission for the other, in the same sub-section, is a strong indicator that a housing society/association of allottees is not a person against whom a complaint under Section 31 lies.”