NOMINAL INDEX
Vankadari Aniruddha Vaishnav & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 15
Neelam Jain & Anr. v. ARG CG Developers LLP, 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 14
R. Jagan Kumar v. Selene Estate Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 55
Balwan Singh v. Housing Board Haryana & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 54
Bellana Bangaru Naidu v. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (AP) 53
Manpreet Singh v. Udit Jain & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 52
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS
Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Vankadari Aniruddha Vaishnav & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 46 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 15
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that commercial hardship or difficulty in obtaining approvals does not amount to frustration of contract, setting aside a RERA order and ruling that Italix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltd. could not change a residential project to commercial use after dismantling the structure during pending complaints.
A coram of Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N and Administrative Member Mahendra Jain found that Italix Living Spaces had acted with mala fide intent by demolishing a partially constructed structure while complaints were still pending, and directed refund of Rs 5 lakh with interest along with Rs 2.5 lakh as consolidated compensation for the loss and mental agony suffered by the allottees. “Mere commercial hardship, inconvenience, or difficulty in obtaining regulatory approvals does not amount to frustration of contract. The doctrine cannot be invoked merely because performance has become onerous or less profitable. Therefore, Promoter cannot alter the nature of the project from residential to commercial use on the pretext of non-availability of TDR, nor can such difficulty be invoked to deny relief to the Allottees”, it held.
Rajasthan REAT
Case Title : Neelam Jain & Anr. v. ARG CG Developers LLP
Case Number : Appeal No. 9/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 14
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, (REAT) Jaipur, has affirmed the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order holding that a complaint filed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, was not maintainable after finding that the dispute over construction of a solar structure on an allotted rooftop involved civil rights that were already pending before a competent civil court.
The bench comprising Chairperson Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma dismissed the appeal filed by joint allottees Neelam Jain and Anand Kumar Jain against ARG CG Developers LLP, holding that the authority had rightly concluded that the complaint could not be entertained under the 2016 Act. “It is noted that point in issue regarding solar structure on allotted roof is directly and substantially involved in Civil Suit as well as in complaint. Whether appellant is entitled for construction on allotted roof, is related to his civil right and since the civil litigation is already pending before the competent Civil Court, therefore, learned Regulatory Authority rightly concluded that the matter does not fall under the RERA Act, 2016 and rightly dismissed the complaint”, the tribunal held.
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Tamil Nadu RERA
Case Title : R. Jagan Kumar v. Selene Estate Limited
Case Number : C.No. 121 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 55
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently held that labour shortage, material scarcity and delay in approvals are not valid excuses for construction delay and found Selene Estate Limited in violation of its agreement with complainant R. Jagan Kumar after cancelling the allotment and reselling the flat to a third party. The Authority, comprising Chairperson Thiru Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Thiru Sukumar Chittibabu, held that the complainant had complied with the payment schedule and that the resale at a higher price showed a profit motive.
“The Respondent has submitted that delay in construction occurred due to natural calamities, labour and material shortage, delay in statutory approvals etc. All these reasons are very generic in nature and cannot be held as valid reasons for delay. It is the responsibility of the Respondent to arrange labour and construction material and obtain statutory approvals. It is beyond the apprehension of this Authority that what kind of statutory approvals the Respondent is talking about when the project has already been registered with TNRERA,” the Authority observed.
Haryana RERA
Development Authority Constructing Flats for Sale Is a Promoter Under RERA: Haryana RERA
Case Title : Balwan Singh v. Housing Board Haryana & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 3151 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 54
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Panchkula, has recently held that a development authority that constructs and allots flats for sale falls within the definition of a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and can be directed to refund the allottee with interest for failure to hand over possession within a reasonable time.
Passing the order in a complaint filed by Balwan Singh, Member Nadiam Akhtar directed the Housing Board Haryana to pay Rs 3,46,507 as the balance refund with interest, noting that the Board had retained the complainant's money for years without offering possession of the flat.
The Authority observed, "Plain reading of the definition given under section 2(zk) makes it clear that any development authority in respect of allottees of building/apartment, as the case may be, constructed by such authority for sale is a promoter in respect of allottees of those buildings/apartments. Here, Housing Board Haryana is a Development Authority and has issued an allotment letter to complainant on 12.02.2015 and issued provisional registration number 36/RTK05/T-B/HGB and final registration number 120 at Rohtak Sector-5. Hence, Housing Board is covered under the definition of promoter under section 2(zk).."
Andhra Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Bellana Bangaru Naidu v. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 43 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(AP) 53
The Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 5 February, held that a prospective buyer who has neither booked a unit nor entered into an agreement for sale cannot be termed an “aggrieved person” under Section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and therefore cannot maintain a complaint before the Authority. Chairperson A. Siva Reddy and Member M. Venkata Ratnam, dismissed proceedings initiated by Bellana Bangaru Naidu against Hayagreeva Farms and Developers as not maintainable. They held:
“A person who has not booked a unit or entered into a registered agreement lacks the locus standi to seek specific reliefs against a project as they have no 'privity of contract' or vested interest in the project's assets.”
Punjab RERA
RERA Act Does Not Mandate Builder To Provide Guest Parking Or Equal Parking Allocation: Punjab RERA
Case Title : Manpreet Singh v. Udit Jain & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. GC No. 0164 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 52
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not mandate builders to provide reserved guest parking, equal parking slots to all residents, or to allocate parking spaces in any specific manner.
The Authority comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyer Manpreet Singh against Udit Jain (Director of One Group), One Group and Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (respondents) concerning parking allocation in the Mohali-based 'One Rise' residential project.
“There is no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to instruct the builder to provide 5% reserved common parking space for guest, to allocate equal number of parking to all the flat owners and to define the size and area of the parking", it observed.