Nominal Index
NBCC (India) Ltd. v. NBCC Imperia Residents' Welfare Association (NIRWA) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 23
Jessica Arun Naidu & Ors. v. M/s Expat Projects and Development Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 24
Bitragunta Venkata Kalyana Chakravarthy and Others vs. Sobha Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 69
Gourav Gupta & Anr. vs Mantri Developers Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 66
Mridula Krishnapur v. Bangalore Development Authority, 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 68
Subhash Dekhne v. Surya Homes & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 72
Anuj Singh v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP & Sapna Singh (Deceased) through Legal Heirs v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP, 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 71
Jagdish Chauhan vs. Ansal Housing Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 65
Glorii Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s AIPL Bharat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 70
Romit Barnyal v. Vipul Mittal & M/s Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 64
M. Srinivasa Rao vs. M/s Sohini Builders LLP & Another, 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 67
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Odisha REAT
Odisha REAT Holds Builders Cannot Retain Maintenance Funds Without Audited Accounts
Case Title : NBCC (India) Ltd. v. NBCC Imperia Residents' Welfare Association (NIRWA) & Anr.
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 124 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 23
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that a builder cannot withhold residents' funds unilaterally without maintaining transparent accounts supported by authenticated records or audited statements to justify utilisation of maintenance funds. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das directed NBCC (India) Ltd. to refund the Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) amount of Rs. 2,32,54,200 to the NBCC Imperia Residents' Welfare Association (NIRWA). It observed:
“The appellant-promoter having failed to produce proper accounts of the collected maintenance charges and expenditures there from together with supporting documents, his claim that the maintenance account had been exhausted and therefore the excess expenditure of Rs.35,14,094.76 towards maintenance had to be made from a total deposit of Rs.2,32,54,200/- in the corpus fund account and accordingly he is liable to refund only a corpus fund deposit of Rs.1,96,38,904.34 to the respondent not.1-association, is not acceptable.”
Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Jessica Arun Naidu & Ors. v. M/s Expat Projects and Development Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. G-20, G-21, G-22, G-23 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 24
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has recently held that compensation cannot be awarded to homebuyers in the absence of proof of actual loss, ruling that notional claims such as loss of property appreciation, time value of money, missed investment opportunities, EMI burden, inflation, and increased cost of living are insufficient to determine compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Holding that the appellants had failed to establish any actual loss, the Tribunal observed that “compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of notional losses” and requires clear evidence of damages arising from delay in handing over possession. A Bench of Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, however, partly allowed the appeals by modifying the refund order passed by the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority in favour of homebuyers who had booked flats in the “Expat Vida Phase-II” project developed by Expat Projects and Development Private Limited.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Bitragunta Venkata Kalyana Chakravarthy and Others vs. Sobha Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 01708/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 69
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that it cannot adjudicate disputes over the validity of a co-operative society formed by homebuyers, clarifying that such issues fall within the jurisdiction of authorities under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The co-operative society formed by some homebuyers of a Shobha HRC Project was intended to function as the residents' association, taking over management of the project and receiving transfer of common areas, funds, and records from the developer.
“This Authority, being a regulatory authority under the RERA Act, cannot adjudicate inter se disputes relating to validity or legality of registration of a society under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which falls within the domain of the competent authority under the said Act. Where promoter has already complied with KAOA mechanism, prima facie compliance of Section 11(4)(e}) is established," the authority observed.
Case Title : Gourav Gupta & Anr. vs Mantri Developers Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 01047/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 66
Holding that there was “clear and continued non-compliance” with its binding directions, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) recently imposed a penalty of up to 5% of the estimated project cost on Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. for failing to comply with its earlier order in favour of homebuyers. A coram comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy further directed the Managing Director and concerned Directors of the company to appear before it and show cause within 30 days as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them for continued non-compliance.
“It is, therefore, crystal clear that the persons who are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Respondent-company do not attach any value to the letter and spirit of the law. ,” the authority observed.
Karnataka RERA Orders Surya Homes, Bagpack Suites To Pay ₹12 Lakh Annual Rent Loss To Homebuyer
Case Title : Subhash Dekhne v. Surya Homes & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 00014/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 72
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has recently directed Surya Homes and its hospitality partner Bagpack Suites Bangalore Private Limited to pay Rs 12 lakh per annum towards loss of rent and Rs 2 lakh towards mental agony to homebuyer Subhash Dhekne for failing to hand over physical possession of a flat despite executing the sale deed. The Authority held that mere execution of a sale deed does not complete a promoter's obligations in the absence of actual handover of possession, observing that compensation can only partially address the distress suffered by a homebuyer.
Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath observed, “It is also to be noted that mental agony being intangible aspect no one other than the aggrieved can put it in words of mouth and no quantum of money could be said to be sufficient to heal the injury caused to the mind. At the most it could be akin to applying a cooling balm on the burns. Therefore, it is quite necessary for this forum to step into the shoes of the aggrieved as practicable as possible to determine the amount of compensation that could be proportionate to the mental agony and financial loss undergone by the complainant. That might have compelled him to spend many sleepless nights. The struggle they had made to mobilize funds for legal battle to recover the money they had invested with such great hope.”
Case Title : Mridula Krishnapur v. Bangalore Development Authority
Case Number : Complaint No.01380/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 68
Warning that delays by developers can shatter homebuyers' lifelong investment-backed aspirations, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to pay Rs 56.03 lakh as interest compensation to a homebuyer for delay in providing basic amenities in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout (NPKL) project in Bengaluru.
Holding that mere execution of a sale deed or handing over possession without basic infrastructure does not amount to a valid handover, a coram of Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy observed, “To have a cosy house is everyone's dream. To fulfil that dream, one could take the risk of investing all lifetime savings and raising loans in terms of lakhs or crores, which could take the rest of life to repay. That being so, (if) the developer resorts to using the hard-earned money of investors in a reckless manner, it would not only shatter the dreams of investors, but also make them run from pillar to post by incurring heavy investment as well as legal expenses. Though the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration of the site to the respondent in the year 2020 itself, she is deprived of use and enjoyment of her site."
Rajasthan RERA
Case Title : Anuj Singh v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP & Sapna Singh (Deceased) through Legal Heirs v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP
Case Number : RAJ-RERA-C-N-2024-7720 & RAJ-RERA-C-N-2024-7731
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 71
Holding that resort villas sold by Keemaya Resorts under a Perpetual Lease Aggregation Agreement (sale-and-leaseback model) are part of a “real estate project” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ruled that such projects must be registered and that buyers qualify as “allottees.”
A coram of Member Sudhir Kumar Sharma observed, “All these documents whether it is brochure of the project or sale deed and PLAA executed in favour of another person 'X', clearly proves that the project was envisaged as Real Estate Project, the Respondent is a Promoter, who sold or booked the Villas for purpose of selling and then taking back management to Resort Management Company through lease,. Every persons who booked the Villa is / was an allottee.”
Haryana RERA
Case Title : Jagdish Chauhan vs. Ansal Housing Limited
Case Number : 6044 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 65
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) recently dismissed a complaint against Ansal Housing Limited, holding that an allottee who chooses to continue in a project and has already been granted delayed possession compensation cannot seek additional compensation for the same period of delay. Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held, “When complainant has already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession. Complaint in hands is thus dismissed. ”
Case Title : Glorii Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s AIPL Bharat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 70
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently cleared the way for registration of the project “The Riviera at AIPL Lake City” in Gurugram, even as a land dispute linked to part of the project remains pending. The Authority said the mere existence of litigation is not enough to deny registration, as long as safeguards are in place to protect buyers. In an order dated March 30, 2026, HARERA revisited the matter after the Appellate Tribunal sent it back for a fresh decision. Following a fresh round of consideration, it allowed the project to go ahead, subject to conditions.
At the same time, it directed the promoter to freeze the portion of the project linked to the disputed land and not sell or market units in that part. The Authority, comprising Chairperson Arun Kumar and Member P.S. Saini, said that buyers must be fully informed about the dispute. It ordered, “The promoter shall make full, complete, and prominent disclosure of the litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 21373 of 2025, or any other proceedings affecting rights in the project land, in all brochures, advertisements, marketing or promotional materials, and on the promoter's website with respect to the project. The promoter shall also ensure that the said disclosure forms an integral part of every agreement for sale executed with allottees.”
Himachal Pradesh RERA
Promoter Cannot Escape Post-Possession Obligations: Himachal Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Romit Barnyal v. Vipul Mittal & M/s Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. HPRERA2025005/C
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 64
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a promoter's obligations under Sections 11 and 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the Act) are continuous and non-delegable, requiring strict compliance with sanctioned plans and provision of all essential services even after handing over possession. The Authority comprising Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta allowed the complaint filed in relation to the “New Town Baddi” project and found that Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. had committed deficiency and violated statutory obligations. It held:
“The promoter is legally bound to ensure that the project is completed in all respects, with all essential infrastructure and services made available, before transferring responsibility to the association of allottees or any other entity. In view of the above, this Authority is of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully established deficiency and non-compliance on the part of the promoter and is, therefore, entitled to appropriate reliefs.”
Telangana RERA
Case Title : M. Srinivasa Rao vs. M/s Sohini Builders LLP & Another
Case Number : Complaint No. 280 of 2024/TG RERA and connected matter
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 67
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on April 6, 2026 ordered suo motu proceedings against Sohini Builders LLP over allegations that it included privately owned plots in a registered project without consent, even as it dismissed complaints filed by two plot owners as not maintainable. At the heart of the ruling was the nature of the relationship. The Authority found that the complainants were not “allottees” under the Act and had no direct transactional link with the promoter, which is essential to invoke the complaint mechanism.
The Authority clarified that dismissal of the complaints would not affect its regulatory powers, stating: “However, this conclusion does not denude the Authority of its regulatory jurisdiction. The material placed on record and the nature of allegations brought forth by the Complainants disclose issues of potential non-compliance with the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and the TG RE(R&D) Rules,2017 framed thereunder, which warrant independent examination in the larger public interest and in furtherance of the objectives of the RE(R&D) Act.”