NOMINAL INDEX
Rahul Parasrampuria v. The State of West Bengal & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 219
Sunstar Homes v. The State of Goa & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 218
Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP and Others v. Neelima Vanguru, 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 69
M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi & connected matters, 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 66
Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Ketan Ashokrao Nage & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 71
RA Residences Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. RA Associates & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 70
Manojkumar Singh v. Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 65
Shashank Vengasarkar & Anr. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 64
V. Suresh Kumar v. BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 68
Sobha Ltd. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 67
Satyendra Kumar Singh & Sonika Kumari Singh v. Bharathiya Urban Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 137
Namasivayam v. Casa Grande Smart Values Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 138
Suo Motu v. K.D. Developers, 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 139
HIGH COURTS
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.”
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Leaves Challenge To Goa RERA Enforcement Rule Open, Dismisses Sunstar Homes' Pleas
Case Title Sunstar Homes v. The State of Goa & Ors.
Case Number Misc. Civil Application Nos. 467-470 of 2026 in Writ Petition Nos. 182-185 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 218
The Bombay High Court at Goa has declined to decide Sunstar Homes' challenge to the validity of Rule 4 of the Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
It found that the question had become academic in the facts of the case.
“Though the vires of the provisions of Rule 4 has been challenged before us, in the aforementioned scenario, where the decree has partly been executed, and the proceedings pending under the Land Revenue Code are well within the powers of the Revenue Authorities under sub-section 1 of Section 40 of RERA, We do not propose to enter into the questions raised in challenge to the vires of Rule 4 of the Goa Rules. This would be only an academic matter in the facts of these Petitions, and we leave this challenge to be addressed in an appropriate Petition,” a Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar observed.
Bombay High Court Leaves Challenge To Goa RERA Enforcement Rule Open, Dismisses Sunstar Homes' Pleas
Case Title Sunstar Homes v. The State of Goa & Ors.
Case Number Misc. Civil Application Nos. 467-470 of 2026 in Writ Petition Nos. 182-185 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 218
The Bombay High Court at Goa has declined to decide Sunstar Homes' challenge to the validity of Rule 4 of the Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
It found that the question had become academic in the facts of the case.
“Though the vires of the provisions of Rule 4 has been challenged before us, in the aforementioned scenario, where the decree has partly been executed, and the proceedings pending under the Land Revenue Code are well within the powers of the Revenue Authorities under sub-section 1 of Section 40 of RERA, We do not propose to enter into the questions raised in challenge to the vires of Rule 4 of the Goa Rules. This would be only an academic matter in the facts of these Petitions, and we leave this challenge to be addressed in an appropriate Petition,” a Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar observed.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Telangana REAT
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.”
Maharashtra REAT
Case Title Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Ketan Ashokrao Nage & Connected Matters
Case Number M.A. Nos. 1123/26, 1723/26, 1178/26, 1124/26, 1125/26, 691/26 & 712/26 in connected appeals
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 71
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has recently allowed two homebuyers to withdraw amounts deposited by Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. as the mandatory pre-deposit for its appeals, after finding that prolonged possession delays had left them paying both EMIs and rent.
In one case, the project remained incomplete for more than four years. In the other, possession was due by December 31, 2014, while the homebuyer had paid 92.8% of the consideration through an HDFC Bank loan and had been paying EMI and rent for 10 years.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed in the first case:
“The applicant is required to stay in the rented accommodation since there is delay of more than 4 years in completing the said project and handing over possession of the flat. While applicant is paying EMIs the applicant is also required to pay the rental amount for rented accommodation. We are of the view that this has been causing great hardship to the applicant.”
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.”
Karnataka REAT
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.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
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."
Tamil Nadu RERA
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.”
Rajasthan RERA
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.”