Nominal Index
Runwal Constructions v. Bharat Shah & Ors. (Connected Matters), 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 310
Bangalore Development Authority v. Union of India & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 79
N.L. Ravi Shankar & Anr. v. The Registrar, TG Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 37
M/s. Evos Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Seema Mohapatra, 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 38
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. Frontier Shelters Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 97
Sushila Devi v. M/s Elan Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 101
Renu Chawla v. Ansal Housing Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 100
Radha Aggarwal v. Assotech Moonshine Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 98
Payal Luthra v. Omaxe Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 99
Neeraj Verma & Anr. v. ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 102
Prajesh Chandra Mohan & Anr. v. Neelkamal Realtors Tower Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 103
Vimal Sana v. M/s Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 104
Ms. Nithya & Anr. v. M/s Casa Grand Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 105
High Courts
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Runwal Constructions v. Bharat Shah & Ors. (Connected Matters)
Case Number: Second Appeal Nos. 251- 261 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 310
The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) to hear appeals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) became functional.
The court ruled that the appellate tribunal could not be regarded as established merely because its chairperson and members had been appointed.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Runwal Constructions and related entities.
Rejecting the developers' challenge, the Court noted that the State government had designated the MRT as the appellate forum under RERA until a regular appellate tribunal became operational.
The Court observed, "Thus, the above aspects show that the State of Maharashtra by notification dated 28th December 2017 designated the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Brihanmumbai constituted and functioning under the Maharashtra Revenue Code to be the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals under RERA until the establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 43 of the RERA. The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Chairperson and members of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal by Government Resolution dated 8th May 2018. The said Chairperson and members took oath on 24th December 2018. Thus, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal started functioning with effect from 24th December 2018."
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Stays RERA's Applicability To BDA Layouts Based On Pre-Act Land Acquisition
Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority v. Union of India & Others
Case Number : W.P. No. 14520/2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 79
On 3 June, the Karnataka High Court stayed the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) to residential layouts and housing schemes undertaken by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) where preliminary land acquisition notifications predated the Act, holding that the issue requires detailed examination.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj granted interim relief to the BDA until 6 July 2026 and observed that the outcome of the case could affect allotments made to several hundred members of the public. He held:
“The stay is granted to examine the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the projects of statutory authorities like the BDA, who are implementing projects on the basis of acquisition of the land, prior to such projects being initiated, prior to the commencement of the RERA.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Telangana REAT
Case Title : N.L. Ravi Shankar & Anr. v. The Registrar, TG Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number: T.A. No. 65 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 37
On 8 June, the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) held that persons claiming independent ownership rights over project land cannot challenge the registration of a project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, where they are neither allottees nor “aggrieved persons” under the Act, and that such disputes fall outside the jurisdiction of RERA.
Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy and Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy dismissed an appeal filed by N.L. Ravi Shankar and N. Chandrakala and upheld the Telangana RERA order returning their complaint as not maintainable. The Bench held:
“We are of the considered view that the appellants cannot be said to be 'aggrieved persons' to take recourse to Section 31(1) of the Act. Thus, from the above analysis, it is evident that the appellants having no concern whatsoever cannot be said to have any locus standi to knock the doors of the Act for redressal of their grievance.”
Odisha REAT
Case Title: M/s. Evos Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Seema Mohapatra
Case Number: OREAT Appeal No.150 of 2024 (Arising out of C.C. No.308 of 2022)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 38
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) has recently upheld an Odisha RERA order directing Evos Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. to restore a sewage treatment plant (STP) in its "City Homes" project to the location shown in the sanctioned plan.
The tribunal accepted a homebuyer's grievance that the relocation had affected the ambience of her flat.
Rejecting the builder's plea that restoring the STP would be costly and affect other residents, the tribunal observed:=
"The further plea of the appellant that installation of the STP again at its original position would incur huge expenditure and will adversely affect the interest of the developer and other allottees, is not acceptable as the appellant should have thought about the expenditure before shifting the STP from its original position in deviation to the sanctioned plan."
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
Karnataka RERA Orders Frontier Shelters To Pay ₹21.63 Lakh Interest For Delay In Flat Possession
Case Title : Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Versus Frontier Shelters Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Complaint No. 01208/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 97
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently directed Frontier Shelters Pvt. Ltd. to pay ₹21.63 lakh as interest for delaying possession of a flat in its Frontier Heights project in Bengaluru, while also ordering the developer to complete the project and hand over the apartment to the buyer.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy. Relying on a site inspection report, the authority found that several crucial works and promised amenities were still unfinished. It noted that the project was not in a condition where possession could be handed over and that an Occupancy Certificate could not be issued.
Haryana RERA
Case Title : Sushila Devi Versus M/S Elan Limited
Case Number: Complaint no: 2360 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 101
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has recently directed Elan Limited to refund the money paid by allottees of a commercial unit in its "Elan Epic" project.
While upholding the cancellation of the allotment on account of the allottees' failure to clear outstanding dues, the Authority held that the builder could not forfeit more than 10% of the sale consideration as earnest money.
“while cancelling the unit, it was an obligation of the respondent to return the paid-up amount after deducting the amount of earnest money.”, the authority noted.
Case Title: Renu Chawla vs Ansal Housing Limited
Case Number : 3030 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 100
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) recently (May 19) directed Ansal Housing Limited to refund Rs. 77.35 lakh along with interest to homebuyers after finding that the possession offer issued by the builder was invalid, as it was made without obtaining the Occupation Certificate.
A coram comprising Arun Kumar (Chairman) observed that:
“There is a delay in handing over the possession as due date of possession was 07.11.2015 whereas, the respondent has failed to obtain the occupation certificate from the concerned authorities till date.”
Haryana RERA Orders Assotech Moonshine To Pay 10.80% Delay Interest For 10-Year Possession Delay
Case Title: Radha Aggarwal Versus Assotech Moonshine Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complainant No 4416 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 98
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA), Gurugram, has directed Assotech Moonshine Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. to pay delayed possession interest to a homebuyer after finding that it had failed to hand over an apartment in its "Assotech Blith" project. The contractual possession date had expired on July 20, 2016.
A bench of Chairman Arun Kumar observed that the builder had still not obtained the Occupation Certificate nearly a decade after the agreed possession date. Holding that the homebuyer had chosen to remain in the project, the Authority ruled that she was entitled to delayed possession interest at the prescribed rate.
The authority observed, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the respondent has failed to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the competent authority till date despite the expiry of approximately ten years from the promised date of possession.”
Punjab RERA
Punjab RERA Directs Omaxe to Pay ₹7.87 Lakh to Homebuyer for Possession Delay
Case Title: Payal Luthra Vs Omaxe Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GC No. 0011/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 99
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has recently directed Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 7.87 lakh to a homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of a flat in its New Chandigarh project.
The order was passed by a bench headed by Chairperson Rakesh Kumar Goyal which observed:
“The Respondent's failure to pay interest as per “Agreement for Sale” and further as per Section 18 of the RERD Act, 2016 constitutes violation of contractual and statutory obligations.”
Right To Interest For Delayed Possession Cannot Be Waived Through Consent Letter: Punjab RERA
Case Title: Neeraj Verma & Anr. vs ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: GC No. 0171 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 102
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has reiterated that a plot buyer's statutory right to claim interest for delayed possession cannot be defeated by a consent undertaking executed in favour of a developer.
The Authority consequently directed ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest to buyers of a plot in its ATS Golf Meadows-5 project at Derabassi.
A bench of Member Arunvir Vashista rejected the developer's reliance on a consent letter signed by the buyers in January 2023. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., the Authority observed:
"The right to claim interest on the period of delayed possession is an indefeasible and unqualified right given to an allottee by the statute which cannot be taken away or declined."
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title: Prajesh Chandra Mohan & Anr. v. Neelkamal Realtors Tower Private Limited & Ors. and Naina Chandra Mohan v. Neelkamal Realtors Tower Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CC006000000196769 and CC006000000196770
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 103
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that purchasers of two flats in the "Godrej Avenue Eleven – Tower B" project were entitled to be treated as allottees and claim interest for delayed possession, even though no agreement for sale had been executed in their favor.
Member Ravindra Deshpande held that the erstwhile promoter, co-promoter, and successor promoter were jointly and severally liable for obligations arising from the project.
"The continuous acknowledgment of the complainants' booking, acceptance of substantial consideration, and identification of specific flats in favour of the complainants sufficiently establish the jural relationship of promoter and allottee under section 2(d) of the Act. In the circumstances, both captioned complainants are held to fall within the definition of 'allottee' under the provisions of the Act," authority observed.
Himachal Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Vimal Sana v. M/s Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. HP RERA/2025021/C
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 104
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) has recently held that a prospective homebuyer's voluntary withdrawal from a proposed flat purchase did not justify retention of the booking amount in the facts of the case, and directed a developer to refund ₹1.01 lakh paid towards booking of a flat.
The order was passed by Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta while allowing a complaint filed by Shimla resident Vimal Sana against Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Private Limited, the developer of the "Mashobra Hills" project.
"The principal defence of the respondent is that the complainant herself withdrew from the transaction due to financial inability and therefore refund is not payable. This contention cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case," the Authority observed.
The Authority further observed, "As per regulation person may choose to withdraw from a proposed booking for personal reasons. However, in absence of a contractual clause authorizing forfeiture, the promoter cannot retain the money deposited by the prospective allottee."
Tamil Nadu RERA
Case Title : Ms. Nithya & Anr. v. M/s Casa Grand Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CCP 275 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 105
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA), on 3 June, held that Casa Grand Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. cannot retain amounts linked to common areas where it uses such areas for additional parking without approval, and it directed the developer to refund Rs.5,94,832 to homebuyers in a Chennai residential project.
A Bench comprising Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. D. Jaganathan, I.A.S. (Retd.), partly allowed the complaint filed by Nithya and R. Maghizharaman and ordered a refund of Rs.5,94,832 while rejecting the remaining reliefs. The Authority observed:
“Hence, the encroachment was not yet rectified by the Respondent. Due to additional car parking provided by the Respondent, there has been encroachment upon the common area for which the Complainants have paid certain amount towards the common area. Therefore, the Complainants are entitled for Rs.5,94,832/- towards the encroachment of common area, as per the calculation submitted by the Complainants which was not disputed by the Respondent.”