Nominal Index
M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited v Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr, 2026 LLBiz REAT(TS) 49
Rakesh Kumar Sharma v Union of India & Ors, 2026 LLBiz REAT(RJ) 47
Air Force Naval Housing Board v Sukhveer Singh Shekhawat (and connected matters), 2026 LLBiz REAT(RJ) 48
M/s ODI-Tech Properties Pvt Ltd v Oditech Pride Buyers Association & Ors, 2026 LLBiz REAT(OD) 50
M/s Bennett Property Holdings Company Ltd v M/s PNB Techwaves Pvt Ltd & Ors, 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 119
Shrinivas Gangadhar Pawar & 25 Other Homebuyers v Mont Vert Elegance, 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 120
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Telangana REAT
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.
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."
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.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Uttar Pradesh RERA
Circular: UP RERA Issues Fresh Guidelines For Stalled Projects, Clarifies Refund Liability
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has recently reissued fresh guidelines governing refund claims in stalled housing projects. It has clarified that a group of allottees or a competent authority completing such projects will not be liable to satisfy refund orders passed earlier against the original promoter.
It also withdraws the authority's earlier Office Order dated June 20, 2023. In its place, the Authority has laid down a revised framework governing refund claims and their enforcement in such projects.
Under the revised framework, where a group of allottees or a competent authority undertakes the remaining development work under Section 8 after cancellation or expiry of the project's registration, neither of them will be liable to satisfy refund amounts awarded under earlier orders passed against the original promoter.
The Authority may, however, issue recovery certificates against the original promoter. The demand covered by such recovery certificates cannot be recovered from the assets of the project concerned.
The revised guidelines also lay down the procedure for dealing with fresh refund complaints.
Tamil Nadu RERA
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.”
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.”