NOMINAL INDEX
Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 25
Balaji Infracare Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Omkar Nath Maheshwari v. Vikas Sharma, 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 73
Shri Kishore Roy Acharjee & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(TRI) 7
Mrs. Urmila Kumari Kadam v. M/s Y. B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT(HR) 62
Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Parshwanath Developers & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT(MH) 63
Kumod Kumar v. M/s Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 134
Meenu Purohit v. Govind Kripa Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 135
Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 136
High Courts
Chhattisgarh High Court
Lack Of Written Allotment Or Agreement Itself Cannot Oust RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr.
Case Number : MA No. 105 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH)25
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the absence of a written allotment document or agreement does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) over a complaint concerning an alleged real estate transaction.
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed, “The word “aggrieved person” used under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 and under Rule 35 of the Rules, 2017, who can file complaint is very wide, therefore, only because no written document to show the allotment of any real estate or any agreement between the parties in itself will not oust the jurisdiction of the RERA."
Allahabad High Court
Substantial Question Of Law Essential For Appeal Under RERA Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Balaji Infracare Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Omkar Nath Maheshwari v. Vikas Sharma
Case Number : RERA APPEAL No. - 160 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 73
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is maintainable only where a substantial question of law arises, and that an order by which the Appellate Tribunal remands a matter to the Regulatory Authority, without finally determining the rights of either party, gives rise to no such question.
Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 permits a person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to appeal to the High Court within sixty days, but only on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows a second appeal where the case involves a substantial question of law.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“It is thus manifest that, having regard to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 58 of the Act of 2016, an appeal is entertainable when it involves a 'substantial question of law'. The existence of a substantial question of law is, therefore, the sine qua non for invoking and exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 58 of the Act of 2016.”
Tripura High Court
Case Title : Shri Kishore Roy Acharjee & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 437 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 7
The Tripura High Court has imposed ₹40,000 in costs on four homebuyers over parallel proceedings concerning alleged unauthorised construction at an apartment complex in Agartala.
The homebuyers had approached both the Tripura Real Estate Regulatory Authority (T-RERA) and the Agartala Municipal Corporation. They also filed an execution proceeding before T-RERA before approaching the High Court but did not disclose this fact.
“It transpires that they have not approached this Court with clear hands,” Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud observed.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Haryana REAT
Valid Possession Offer Before Due Date Bars Homebuyer's Delay Compensation: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Mrs. Urmila Kumari Kadam v. M/s Y. B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. 696 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 62
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 31 August held that a homebuyer cannot claim delayed-possession charges where the promoter made a valid offer of possession before the stipulated possession date, even if physical possession was handed over later.
A Bench comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan dismissed an appeal filed by homebuyer Urmila Kumari Kadam and upheld the Gurugram Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order refusing delayed-possession charges against Y.B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Nimai Developers. It held:
“The promoters made offer of possession to the allottee on 01.04.2023, which constitutes valid offer of possession. The Authority rightly observed that as 'valid offer of possession' was given to the allottee, she is not entitled for any delay possession charges.”
Maharashtra REAT Orders Demolition Of Additional Building Over Lack Of Homebuyer Consent
Case Title : Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Parshwanath Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006000000345557 & AT006000000345563 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 63
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has ordered the demolition of an additional building in the Parshvadhara project at Belavali, Thane, after finding that it was not disclosed to homebuyers and could not be constructed without their prior informed consent.
The tribunal directed the promoters to demolish the additional building at their own expense within 90 days. It also ordered restoration of the playground, garden, children's playground, recreation ground and other open spaces in accordance with the 2015 sanctioned plan, brochure and other disclosures made to the allottees.
The order was passed by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande on September 7, 2026.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Bihar RERA
Bihar RERA Holds Section 39 Of RERA Act Cannot Be Used To Review Liability On Merits
Case Title : Kumod Kumar v. M/s Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/368/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 134
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA) on 31 August held that rectification under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) cannot be used to materially alter a substantive finding of liability, as doing so would amount to reviewing the original order on merits.
Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh rejected an application filed by Kumod Kumar, Complainant, a former director of Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd., seeking deletion of his name and liability from an earlier refund order concerning the Ramagya Residency project. The Authority observed:
“Rectification cannot be invoked for re-hearing the original matter, re-appreciating evidence, reconsidering disputed questions of fact, taking a different view on materials already considered, or substituting a fresh decision in place of the decision already rendered.”
Rajasthan RERA
Case Title : Meenu Purohit v. Govind Kripa Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : RAJ-RERA-C-N-2025-7847 and connected complaints
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 135
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a former shareholder and director of a promoter company who exited a real estate project and was subsequently allotted 20 flats in his individual capacity under agreements to sell qualifies as an “allottee” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Sudhir Kumar Sharma held that the documents executed after his exit established an allottee-promoter relationship, despite his earlier association with the company.
The authority observed, “The factum of purchase of 20 units solely by the complainant does not categorize him as an 'investor', and he still remains an allottee within the definition of Section 2(d) of the Act.”
Section 2(d) of the RERA Act defines an “allottee” as a person to whom a plot, apartment, or building has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by a promoter. Section 31 enables an aggrieved person to approach the authority with a complaint under the Act.
Karnataka RERA
K-RERA Says 2/3 Allottee Consent Needed For Changes Beyond Sale Agreement
Case Title : Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited |
Case Number: Complaint No. 00772/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 136
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has reiterated that consent from two-thirds of allottees is required only when a proposed alteration goes beyond what was mutually agreed in the contract.
Relying on an appellate tribunal ruling, the authority comprising Chairman Rakesh SIngh and Member GR Reddy ruled, “The requirement of consent of 2/3rd allottees arises only when there is an alteration beyond what was mutually agreed in the contract,” the Authority observed.
K-RERA made the observation while dismissing a complaint by the Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association seeking revocation of the registration of L&T Realty Developers Limited's Elara Celestia project and demolition of commercial buildings.