High Courts
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal v. Shri Ji Builders and Developers
Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 2857 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 47
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently has held that MP-RERA could not reject a real estate project registration application for non-production of a cooperative society's 25-year-old internal records when registered title documents and revenue records had already been produced.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed MP-RERA's appeal and upheld an earlier order directing the authority to process the registration application filed by Shri Ji Builders and Developers for its proposed "Krishna Orchid" project in Bhopal.
"To demand historical internal records of a cooperative from 1999, twenty-five years post-facto, is to impose an impossible burden of proof," the court observed.
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."
Bombay High Court Says Homebuyers Retain Right To Delay Interest Despite Staying With Project
Case Title : CCI Projects Private Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary & Ors.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 479 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 349
The Bombay High Court has held that homebuyers who continue with a housing project despite delayed possession do not lose their statutory right to claim interest for the delay.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by CCI Projects Private Limited and upheld a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order directing the developer to pay interest to purchasers of an apartment in the Wintergreen building of its Rivali Park project in Mumbai.
“The unqualified absolute right of the allottee stands statutorily recognised and the continuation with the project, which if expressed in the language of Section 55 of Contract Act, constitutes acceptance of delayed performance, does not impact the unfettered statutory right conferred by Section 18 of RERA Act to claim interest,” the court observed.
Case Title : Upvan Woodlands Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M/s Upvan Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11551 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 331
Conveyance of land in favour of a co-operative housing society cannot be postponed until completion of an entire layout development, the Bombay High Court has reiterated while setting aside an order that rejected a society's deemed conveyance application as premature.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “This Court has already held that conveyance cannot be postponed till completion of entire layout development and that land can be conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-Society even before completion of the layout development.”
The ruling came in a petition filed by Upvan Woodlands Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which challenged an order dated May 20, 2025 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting its application for deemed conveyance.
TDR From Reserved Land Cannot Defeat Deemed Conveyance Rights Of Societies: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Kalpita Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9694 of 2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 351
On 18 June, the Bombay High Court upheld the grant of deemed conveyance in favour of three housing societies in Mumbai, holding that compensation or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arising from acquisition of land reserved for a municipal market and a primary school cannot be treated as development potential of a residential layout so as to delay conveyance.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly allowed a writ petition filed by Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. challenging the deemed conveyance order, while rejecting the developer's contention that future development rights from the reserved lands could be used for proposed Buildings N and P and therefore justify deferring conveyance. The Bench observed:
“The compensation receivable either in monetary terms or in the form of TDR cannot be treated as a development potential for land to be conveyed in favour of Respondent-Societies. Once land is acquired, it would get separated from the layout and would have no relationship with the development carried out in the layout.”
Case Title: Rajan Chandiramani v. Swadhinta Builders LLP & Connected Matters
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 559 of 2025 & Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 355
The Bombay High Court has held that the liberty granted to homebuyers to seek revocation of a project's registration does not foreclose their right to execute an order directing completion of the project through other modes available in law.
Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the ruling while allowing appeals filed by several allottees of the stalled "Shri Vallabh Residency" project in Kandivali (West), Mumbai.
The court set aside a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) order refusing to permit part of a proposed amendment to the allottees' execution applications. The amendment sought completion of the project either by the allottees or through another agency appointed by the tribunal at the developer's cost.
The court observed, "If the revocation of registration was to be provided as a panacea for the disobedience of the orders passed by the Authorities under the RERA 2016, the Parliament would not have made multiple provisions for enforcement of the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act."
Kerala High Court
Case Title Prasanth B. & Anr. v. Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (and connected cases)
Case Number W.A. Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060, 1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 87
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a builder could not be permitted to calculate the mandatory pre-deposit for pursuing a RERA appeal on the basis of the Marginal Cost of Funds-based Lending Rate (MCLR) instead of the State Bank of India's Benchmark Prime Lending Rate plus 2% prescribed under Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018.
The Court observed that such a course would "render Rule 18 a dead letter."
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar allowed a batch of appeals filed by homebuyers against Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The bench vacated an interim order of a Single Judge that had permitted the builder to calculate the pre-deposit on the basis of MCLR instead of the rate prescribed under Rule 18.
"We are of the view that the intent of the Legislature was deliberate and the same was to fix a deterrent rate that would compensate allottees/buyers meaningfully and discourage promoter/builder defaults. If the order is allowed to stand, every promoter/builder against whom an order is issued by the RERA would at the stage of filing of the appeal insist on refixation of the pre-deposit with External Benchmark Lending Rate (EBLR), which would lower their burden even further. This would render Rule 18 a dead letter and deprive the provision of certainty and enforceability. ," the Court observed.
Case Title : The Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : WP(C) No. 17474 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 108
The Kerala High Court has held that the exemption from registration available for renovation, repair or redevelopment projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be claimed where the original project itself was required to be registered under the law.
Dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) and its Project Director, the court upheld interim orders of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA). The authority had held complaints filed by homebuyers of the Chander Kunj Army Towers project in Kochi to be maintainable.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that once a project is found to be mandatorily registrable under the Act, the exemption under Section 3(2)(c) is unavailable.
"When the original project itself is found to be mandatorily registrable under Section 3, the question of exemption as contemplated under Section 3(2)(c) would not arise.", it held.
Case Title : Greha Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 21189 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 113
The Kerala High Court recently (June 22) admitted a writ petition challenging a Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) order requiring registration of projects built on less than 500 square metres of land if they comprise more than eight units.
The matter came up before Justice Gopinath P. The court admitted the petition and granted K-RERA time to obtain instructions.
Greha Homes Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, contends that its "Greha Five Elements" project, comprising 14 apartment units on 445 square metres of land at Kanayannoor Village in Elamkulam, Ernakulam, falls outside K-RERA's jurisdiction.
To consider the contentions raised on merits, the court directed that adjudication of any complaint against the petitioner concerning the project be deferred by 10 days.
The court observed, "In order to consider the contentions raised on merits, I direct that the adjudication of any complaint against the petitioner in respect of the project in question shall be deferred by a period of 10 days."
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.”
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title Vardhman Developers v. Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number RERA APPEAL No. 07 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 8
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently held that the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for entertaining a promoter's appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, applies not only in cases involving penalties.
It also applies where a promoter challenges directions requiring payment of amounts to allottees, including interest and compensation.
A bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Vardhman Developers. The appeal challenged an order of the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directing the developer to deposit 50% of the amount payable to allottees in compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.
Explaining the scope of the provision, the court observed,
“The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act is in two parts. Earlier part of the provision deals with the cases of penalty, where the pre-condition for entertaining appeal is deposit of 30% of the penalty or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The second and the latter part deals with any other amounts including interest or compensation, imposed by the Tribunal and in such cases, the same is required to be deposited as a precondition for availing the remedy of appeal”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Uttar Pradesh REAT
Virtual Office Spaces Treated As Intangible Property, Fall Outside RERA's Scope: Uttar Pradesh REAT
Case Title : Diograzia Realcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhutani Group
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 382 to 392 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 39
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that non-lockable or virtual office spaces fall outside the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It ruled that the law governs physical real estate units and does not cover such intangible investment interests.
The tribunal consequently set aside U.P. RERA's directions requiring Bhutani Group to execute conveyance deeds, hand over possession and pay delay interest.
The ruling was delivered by a tribunal comprising Judicial Member Sanjai Khare and Technical Member Devindar Singh Chaudhry.
The tribunal ruled, "Having regard to the provisions of the Act, virtual space is not considered to be covered under the Act, 2016, which primarily regulates sale and purchase of physical real estate units in a building, and does not explicitly address intangible digital property like virtual space."
"The property law principles, such as, exclusivity, transferability and enforceability still struggle to apply to virtual property because of their intangible nature. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the allottee of a virtual space is promised a proportionate share of lease rent payable in future which is not akin to handing over/taking possession of a unit earmarked by boundaries for which the buyer/allottee has paid an amount to the promoter. It is, therefore, not within the purview of the Act, 2016. The dispute, is of a civil nature pertaining to investment, whereas, Act 2016 deals with builder-buyer relationship with regard to delivery of physical possession of the unit to the allottee or with withdrawal from the delayed project as per provisions of Section 18 of Act, 2016. The allottee can take remedy for breach of the terms of the agreement before an appropriate forum in accordance with law," it added, explaining its rationale.
Maharashtra REAT
Settlement Talks, Vague Legal Advice Can't Justify 299-Day Delay In Filing Appeal: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Mukesh Mangilal Jain v. Acme Industries Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Misc. Application No. 107 of 2025 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT12500066
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 39
he Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has refused to condone a 299-day delay in an appeal filed by a homebuyer against Acme Industries Private Limited.
The tribunal held that claims of settlement talks, conflicting legal advice, and a family bereavement were not enough to justify such a prolonged delay.
A coram of Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara observed: "The Applicant has neither disclosed the particulars of the alleged advice nor placed any material on record to demonstrate as to how such advice prevented him from availing the statutory remedy available within the prescribed period. A vague plea regarding legal advice, unsupported by any material record, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for substantial delay in filing the appeal."
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."
Rajasthan REAT
Rajasthan REAT Upholds RERA Order Treating Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank As Promoter In Kota Project
Case Title Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number Appeal No. 308/2024 (arising out of Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2023-6115)
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 36
On 19 May, the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) upheld a Rajasthan RERA order treating Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma held that the bank stepped into the developer's role in the “Shreenath Oasis” project at Kota after acquiring an interest in the project through a mortgage. It held:
“it is admitted fact that the respondent-developer and the respondent-landowners have assigned their rights in the project by way of mortgage and executed mortgage-deed in favour of the respondent-bank”
Case Title Harish Jasuja v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr
Case Number Appeal No. 66/2022 and connected appeals
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 35
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has cautioned against attempts to claim exemption from project registration by relying on separate ownership of adjoining land parcels measuring less than 500 square meters.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma made the observation while dismissing eight connected appeals filed by promoter Harish Jasuja concerning the “City Trade Center” project in Sri Ganganagar.
Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, registration is generally not required where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight.
The tribunal observed:
“If we exempt such type of projects from registration then, two or more than two persons or a group of persons will purchase the parcel of land by separate sale-deeds of less than 500 square meters adjacent to each other and, therefore, after taking approval of competent authority in the independent capacity, they may design, construct or even offer for sale along with all type of common amenities with mutual understanding and claim for exemption to frustrate the very purpose of enactment of the RERA Act, 2016. Therefore, we may safely conclude that the project was designed, constructed and marketed as one single project and required to be registered under Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Rajasthan RERA
Rajasthan RERA Orders Forensic Audit Of Avalon Royal Park Project, Says IBC Moratorium Not A Bar
Case Title : Avalon Royal Park Homebuyers' Association v. GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : (151) RJ/RERA/C/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 110
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has ordered a forensic audit of the Avalon Royal Park housing project in Bhiwadi after finding significant inconsistencies in the developer's financial disclosures.
It also noted a substantial gap between the expenditure claimed and the physical progress achieved at the project.
Chairperson Veenu Gupta held that the audit could proceed despite insolvency proceedings against the developer. The authority ruled that the exercise would be investigative and fact-finding in nature. It would not interfere with the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or violate the moratorium in force under insolvency law.
The authority ruled, "At this stage, the proposed forensic audit is merely intended to facilitate independent verification of project accounts and examination of compliance with statutory obligations under the Act, 2016 and to provide foundational material for any further action, if warranted, in accordance with law. The same is essentially investigative and fact finding in nature and does not, by itself, interfere with the powers exercised by the RP under the IBC.”
Telangana RERA
Case Title Vijay Kumar Pasumarti vs SVS Square Spaces LLP
Case Number Complaint No. 57 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 93
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), on 5 May, directed SVS Square Spaces to carry out comprehensive waterproofing works and permanently rectify seepage and leakage issues in a homebuyer's flat, holding that the defects arose from defective workmanship in the terrace flooring and inadequate waterproofing.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana with Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao allowed the complaint and held the promoter responsible for rectification of the defects. The Bench held:
“that the water leakages stemming from the terrace into the below floor constitute a clear instance of defective workmanship of the terrace flooring and an inadequate waterproofing course”
Telangana RERA Fines Indo Qatar Projects ₹38.63 Lakh For Marketing Unregistered Projects
Case Title : In Re: M/s Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Suo Motu Case No. D6/939/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 111
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has directed Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd. to pay a consolidated penalty of ₹38.63 lakh. The authority found that the company advertised and marketed multiple unregistered real estate projects. It also facilitated the sale of one project without obtaining registration as a real estate agent.
A coram of Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao observed that registration is a mandatory pre-condition before a promoter undertakes any commercial or promotional activity relating to a real estate project.
It observed, "The legislative mandate is explicit, no promoter is authorised to advertise, promote, solicit bookings, sell, or offer for sale any plot, apartment, or building within a real estate project, or any portion thereof, situated in a designated planning area, unless the project has been registered with the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, imposes a non-derogable obligation on promoters, making registration a precondition for carrying out any commercial transactions or promotional activities in respect of a project."
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Vijay Veer; Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Pankaj Choudhary & Anr.
Case Number Complaint No. CC006000000354480 and Complaint No. CC006000000480190
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 94
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held that repeated and prolonged payment defaults by homebuyers are contrary to their contractual and statutory obligations.
It observed that such defaults adversely affect project execution, financial planning, and a promoter's obligations towards other stakeholders and financial institutions.
Member Ravindra Deshpande made the observation while allowing two complaints filed by Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. The Authority directed Santosh Vijay Veer and Pankaj Choudhary and Jyoti Choudhary to pay outstanding sale consideration of ₹37.57 lakh and ₹1.25 crore respectively, together with interest at SBI's highest MCLR plus 2%.
The authority observed:
"The provisions of Section 19(6) of the said Act cast a statutory obligation upon every allottee to make necessary payments in the manner and within the time stipulated under the Agreement for Sale. The repeated and prolonged defaults committed by the Respondents are therefore contrary not only to the contractual obligations undertaken by them but also to the statutory framework governing real estate transactions under the said Act."
"The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has consistently held that while the provisions of the said Act are intended to protect the interests of allottees, the same equally require adherence to financial discipline and reciprocal contractual obligations by the allottees. Persistent payment defaults by allottees adversely affect project execution, financial planning and obligations of the promoter towards other stakeholders and financial institutions. In the present case, there is no material placed on record to establish any delay attributable to the Complainant promoter as the contractual possession date itself is 30.04.2027 and the project is stated to be substantially completed.", it added.
MahaRERA Holds Common Facility Disputes Must Be Pursued Through Society, Rejects Individual Claims
Case Title: Vinod Parasharam Atpadkar & Ors. v. Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complaint No. CC12503139
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 106
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 11 June, held that individual allottees cannot pursue disputes relating to common amenities, maintenance charges and collective facilities once a co-operative housing society is formed, and must raise such issues through the society under Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Mahesh Pathak dismissed a complaint filed by 19 allottees of Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.'s “Marathon Nexzone Zenith-2” project, holding that the dispute became not maintainable once the society came into existence and possession had already been handed over. He observed:
“Once the society is formed, issues relating to common amenities, common facilities, common charges and the collective rights of allottees are required to be raised through the society as the said society is entitled to seek possession of such common areas as per the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.”
Case Title : Jithin Philip Mathews & Anr. v. Tycoons Avanti Projects LLP
Case Number: CC006000000591406
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 107
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 15 June 2026 held that the completion or extension dates reflected on the RERA web portal cannot override the specific possession date agreed between a developer and a homebuyer under a registered agreement for sale.
A Bench comprising Member Ravindra Deshpande disposed of two complaints relating to the “Tycoons Square Avenue I Tower C” project. It directed Tycoons Avanti Projects LLP to refund Rs 58.51 lakh with interest to homebuyers Jithin Philip Mathews and Mathews Mathai for failing to hand over possession on time.
In the connected complaint, the Authority also directed the developer to hand over possession of a commercial unit to purchaser Gobind Rajani along with delayed-possession interest. The Bench observed:
“Considering the said observation, this Authority is of the view that the date of completion of the said project mentioned on the MahaRERA website is distinct from the date of possession mentioned in the said Agreements signed with the Complainant and as per the terms of the said Agreement, possession of the said flat was to be handed over to the Complainant on 30.03.2023, which the Respondent has failed to comply, which fact entitles the Complainants to the costs of the present complaint. In light of the aforesaid, in my opinion, the Complainants are entitled to withdraw from the said project and seek refund of the amount paid towards the sale consideration only.”
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.
Karnataka RERA
Sohan Realty Cannot Deny Homebuyer Rights Over Payments to Previous Developer: Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru v. Manyam Estates Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 00202/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 108
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has directed Sohan Realty, which took over the Bengaluru residential project now known as Sohan Skypark, to recognise homebuyer Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru as the lawful allottee of Flat No. B-302.
It also directed the developer to grant her access and possession of the apartment.
The order was passed by Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy.
“Section 19(1) of the Act confers upon every allottee the right to possession and peaceful enjoyment of the apartment, while Section 11(4)(a) mandates the promoter to honour obligations arising from agreements and representations. Once M/s Sohan Realty has stepped in as promoter under Section 8, it cannot refuse access nor shift responsibility onto the outgoing promoter,” the Authority observed.
Promoter Holds Homebuyers' Funds In Trust, Cannot Retain Common Assets After Handover: K-RERA
Case Title: Yoganandan Jagannathan v. Smart Value Homes (Peenya Project) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Complaint No. 00002/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 109
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) on 3 June held that a promoter holds money collected from homebuyers in trust and cannot use it for construction activities or personal purposes and that a promoter's obligation to transfer common areas, project assets and funds to the association of allottees continues even after handing over possession.
Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy directed Smart Value Homes Private Limited and Tata Value Homes Limited to restore DG-set backup power supply to Jagannathan's apartment, complete the promised amenities, and transfer key project assets, funds and utility infrastructure of the "New Haven Bengaluru Phase 1" project to the authorised association of allottees. The Authority observed:
“The collected funds are held by the promoter in trust. The Promoter cannot utilize this money for construction or personal use. The obligation to transfer common areas and sinking funds is a continuance cause of action.”
Karnataka RERA Orders Penalty Proceedings Against Maxworth Realty Over Unregistered Project
Case Title Lakshmi V. Reddy versus M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd.
Case Number Complaint No: 00915 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 92
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has ordered initiation of penalty proceedings against Maxworth Realty India Ltd for failing to register its project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, while also directing the developer to hand over possession of a plot booked by a homebuyer more than a decade ago.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy held that the developer could not continue retaining the buyer's money without either completing the transaction or returning the amount.
"The respondent cannot be permitted to unjustly enrich itself by retaining the complainant's money indefinitely without either executing conveyance or refunding the amount," the Authority observed.
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 Dr. Kumar Rajiv & Anr. Versus Adani M2K Projects LLP
Case Number Complaint No: 5388 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 95
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has held that homebuyers in an Adani M2K project who chose to continue with the project after securing delayed possession compensation cannot seek separate compensation for the same delay.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held, “The parliament did not intend to provide compensation other than DPC in case allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project.”
The ruling came while dismissing a complaint filed by two homebuyers against Adani M2K Projects LLP, the developer of the Oyster Grande residential project in Gurugram.
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."
Punjab RERA Orders ₹24.38 Lakh Refund To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession Of Sunny Enclave Plot
Case Title Sanjeev Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number Complaint No. C No. 0015 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 96
On 27 May, the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) reiterated that homebuyers cannot be compelled to remain in indefinitely delayed real estate projects and are entitled to seek refund with interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 where promoters fail to deliver possession within a reasonable time.
The Authority, comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh, directed Bajwa Developers Ltd. and others to refund Rs. 24,38,075 to Gurgaon resident Sanjeev Kumar along with interest at 10.80% per annum from the respective dates of payment until realisation. It held:
“Since the possession of plot has been delayed inordinately; therefore, as provisions of Section 18 the complainant is entitled to claim refund along with interest as per its choice in case of non-completion by agreed date.”
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.”
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.”