NOMINAL INDEX
Ibrahim Babubhai Chokiya & Ors. v. M/s Westinrely Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 377
M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Shankar Ji Maharaj Trust, 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 51
St. Patricks Realty Private Limited v. Neha Prasad & Ors. and Connected Appeals, 2026 LLBiz REAT(HR) 42
Gurcharan Kaur & Another v. Dheeraj Sharma, 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 115
Anish Charudatta Galgate & Anr. v. Rejoice Homes LLP & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 116
High Courts
Bombay High Court
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.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Haryana REAT
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."
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Punjab RERA
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."
Maharashtra RERA
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."