Nominal Index
Jetal Construction Private Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 55
Vandana Parvez v. Government of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 203
Ashish Choudhary & Anr. v. Thills (formerly known as Jaganmata Property Developers Private Limited), 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 121
Sanjeev Kumar Anwar (HUF) v. M/s Diamond Multistate CGHS Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (DL) 122
Filomena Fernandes & Anr. v. M/s Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (GA) 123
Tarun Alex v. Maa Vindhyavasani Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 124
Shridevi Valluri v. Aparna Constructions & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 125
High Courts
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Jetal Construction Private Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20298 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 55
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that a RERA Adjudicating Officer cannot independently determine and award interest after the Regulatory Authority has already decided a homebuyer's entitlement to a refund and compensation.
It ruled that such a determination falls outside the jurisdiction conferred on the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke partly allowed a writ petition filed by Jetal Construction Private Limited and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's award of 10% annual interest. The court, however, sustained the directions giving effect to the Regulatory Authority's determination on refund and compensation.
The court observed, "Section 71 of the Act of 2016 also makes it evident that the Adjudicating Officer has been appointed only for the limited purpose of adjudging compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act. Likewise, Section 40 of the Act merely provides for recovery of interest, penalty or compensation and for enforcement of orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer, the Regulatory Authority or the Appellate Tribunal within the sphere of their respective statutory powers. The said provision does not confer any additional substantive jurisdiction upon the Adjudicating Officer to determine issues beyond those expressly entrusted under Section 71 of the Act."
Madras High Court
Case Title : Vandana Parvez v. Government of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1276 & 1318 of 2026 and W.P. Nos. 19614, 19624, 19650 & 19653 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 203
The Madras High Court on 10 July held that a homebuyer cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to combine distinct grievances arising under different statutory regimes when specialised statutory forums provide the appropriate remedy.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed six writ petitions filed by homebuyer Parvez concerning the Aavisa Golf Township project, holding that disputes relating to consumer rights, real estate regulation, bank recovery, insolvency, money laundering and civil rights must be pursued before the forums specifically empowered to decide them. The judges held:
“The petitioner seeks to club distinct issues and have them adjudicated before this Court under writ jurisdiction. However, in respect of the grievance raised, the remedy lies strictly before the respective competent statutory forum. Hence, the present petitions are clearly misplaced and are not sustainable. The remedy available to the petitioner, as a homebuyer, to address her grievances lies only before the concerned competent forum, as has already been observed in the earlier writ petitions, which have since attained finality.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
Karnataka RERA Directs Thills To Pay ₹7 Lakh For Concealing Land Litigation From Homebuyers
Case Title: Ashish Choudhary & Anr. v. Thills (formerly known as Jaganmata Property Developers Private Limited)
Case Number : Complaint No. 01451/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA)121
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 18 July held that a real estate developer's failure to disclose pending litigation over project land before executing a sale deed amounts to suppression of a material fact, entitling homebuyers to compensation for loss of opportunity and mental agony.
Adjudicating Officer Smt. Maheshwari S. Hiremath directed Thills (formerly known as Jaganmata Property Developers Private Limited) to pay Rs. 7 lakh as compensation to two homebuyers after finding that the developer concealed a pending civil suit concerning the land on which its Tivoli Hills Phase 3 project at Devanahalli was being developed. The Bench held:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, certainly the complainants do not enjoy absolute right, title and interest over their plot as the same shall be based on the outcome of said suit. The non-disclosure of such a material fact has resulted in the loss of opportunity and mental agony. Generally, the allottees will purchase residential plots with an intention to construct their dream house. Herein this case, the complainants are unable to construct their house on the said plot. Further, the complainants have availed home loan to purchase the said plot. Hence, they are burdened with EMI towards housing loan."
Delhi RERA
Delhi RERA Orders Refund After Housing Society Took Bookings Without Land Needed To Register Project
Case Title : Sanjeev Kumar Anwar (HUF) v. M/s Diamond Multistate CGHS Ltd.
Case Number : Com/11/06/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (DL) 122
The Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Delhi RERA) has directed Diamond Multistate CGHS Ltd. to refund ₹19.89 lakh with 10.75% interest to a homebuyer who booked an apartment in its proposed Delhi Housing Scheme II project.
The Authority found that the society neither commenced the project nor informed the buyer that it lacked the land required to register it.
Member Devesh Singh held that the society had contravened Sections 12 and 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 after finding that it withheld information from the allottee and failed to commence the project.
Referring to the objective of the Act, the Authority observed, "It also seeks to establish symmetry of information between the promoter and purchaser, enhance transparency of contractual conditions, set minimum standards of accountability and a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism."
Goa RERA
Penalty Under RERA Act Can Be Set Aside Only By Appellate Authority Not Private Settlement: Goa RERA
Case Title : Filomena Fernandes & Anr. v. M/s Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates & Ors.
Case Number : F. No. 1/RERA/Enfor.Auth.Comp. (353)/99/2024/1082
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (GA) 123
The Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 22 July held that a penalty imposed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be waived merely because a promoter and allottees have subsequently settled their disputes, as such penalty can cease to operate only if the appellate authority reduces or sets aside the order imposing it.
Member Vincent D'Silva refused to waive the Rs. 1 lakh penalty imposed on Alfredo M. Cotta and Associates and its proprietor Alfredo M. Cotta for violating Section 11(4)(a) of the 2016 Act, which requires promoters to discharge their obligations, responsibilities and functions under the Act, the Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 and the agreement for sale. He observed:
“The said settlement terms do not in any way impede the Authority from recovering the said amount of penalty imposed under Section 61 of the Act for violation of Section 11(4)(a) of the RERA Act. There is also no provision in the RERA Act for waiving of the penalty, once imposed, nor can the proceedings be dropped as the penalty by the defaulter form a part and parcel of the State revenue.”
Bihar RERA
Case Title : Tarun Alex v. Maa Vindhyavasani Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/AO/02/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 124
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 21 July held that a homebuyer cannot secure compensation from a developer until the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or criminal court first determines the developer's liability, observing that parallel proceedings make a compensation claim premature.
Adjudicating Officer Vinod Kumar Tiwari rejected Tarun Alex's compensation complaint against Maa Vindhyavasani Developers Pvt. Ltd. concerning its Rainbow Residency project, while allowing him to file a fresh compensation claim after the proceedings before the Authority concluded. He observed:
“Considering above facts, it appears that unless and until respondent found guilty by Real Estate Regulatory Authority or criminal court, and also without considering such order, compensation cannot be either calculated or awarded. As such this case appears to be pre-mature.”
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."