Kerala High Court

Non-Registration Of Ongoing Project Does Not Bar RERA Or Hinder Allottee Rights: Kerala High Court

Case Title : The Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors

Case Number : WP(C) No.6169 of 2026 & connected matters

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37

The Kerala High Court on 20 February held that a developer's failure to mandatorily register a housing project cannot be invoked to challenge RERA's jurisdiction, and cannot deprive allottees of statutory relief. 

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO), observing that once a project is compulsorily registrable under Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, complaints by allottees are maintainable before the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority(K-RERA). 

The Bench observed: 

“The breaches on the part of the promoter to fulfill the mandatory obligation under the statute, cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate rights of allottees that flow from the enactment.”

Calcutta High Court

Repeal Of 1993 West Bengal Building Act Does Not Extinguish Pending Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

Case Title : R.D.B. Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Others

Case Number : WPA No. 28998 of 2023 (with CAN No. 1 of 2024)

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 61

The Calcutta High Court recently upheld compensation orders passed against R.D.B. Builders in a long-running flat dispute, holding that the repeal of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 does not extinguish proceedings already pending under it. 

The Court held: 

“The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any specific order that the repeal of the Act of 1993 would be effective retrospectively. The Hon'ble Court also not passed any order for transfer of all pending cases under the Act of 1993 to the concern authorities under RERA.” 

Bombay High Court

Builders Cannot Charge Labour Cess Or Work Contract Tax from Homebuyers: Haryana RERA

Case Title : Seekha Cecelia Gomes v. Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number : Complaint No. 2019 of 2025 and three connected matters.

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 34

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently reiterated that builders cannot recover labour cess or work contract tax from homebuyers. The authority also directed Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest to buyers for the delay in handing over flats in its Expressway Towers project in Sector 109, Gurugram.

Chairman Arun Kumar observed that such charges cannot be passed on to buyers. “The allottee is neither an employer nor a contractor, and labour cess is not a tax but a fee. Thus, the demand of labour cess is completely arbitrary, and the complainant cannot be made liable to pay any labour cess,” the authority said.

Deemed Conveyance Orders Passed Before 2025 Amendment Of MOFA Remain Valid: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Mahanagar Realty v. Ganga Ishanya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors

Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14936 of 2023

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 107

The Bombay High Court on 23 February held that deemed conveyance orders under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, issued prior to the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2025, remain valid and cannot be reopened merely because the amendment now aligns deemed conveyance in RERA-registered projects with completion of the last building in a layout. 

Explaining the effect of the saving clause, the Court observed: 

“Section 5 of the Amendment Act, 2025 provides that any proceedings instituted including the decisions taken, orders passed or directions issued by competent authority shall be deemed to be duly and validly executed”.

Real Estate Appellate Tribunals

Uttar Pradesh REAT

Even Appeal Against Consequential Execution Order Requires Full Decretal Deposit Under RERA : UP REAT

Case Title : Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Case Number : Appeal-132/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 13

The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that where a decree has attained finality between the parties, a promoter cannot maintain an appeal against a consequential order passed in execution proceedings without first depositing the entire decretal amount, including interest, as mandated under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 

“Sub-section (5) of Section 43 confers upon any person aggrieved to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The proviso to Sub-section (5) provides where a promoter files an appeal with the Tribunal, 'it shall not be entertained' without the promoter 'first having deposited' with the Tribunal, the 'total amount to be paid to the allottee, including interest' before the said appeal is heard. In other words, promoter, assailing a consequential order in execution proceedings of an unchallenged judgment/decree, is required in the first instance to deposit the decretal amount granted in favour of the allottee being the total amount to be paid to the allottee”, the tribunal said.

Rajasthan REAT

Rajasthan REAT Dismisses 20 Homebuyers' Refund Appeals After Project Completion Certificate

Case Title : Lalita Soni & Ors. v. M/s Shree Ram Balaji Developers and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number : Appeal Nos. 288/2024 to 307/2024 and 01/2025 to 03/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 12

The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), Jaipur, has recently dismissed appeals filed by 20 homebuyers seeking refunds in the “Sai Angan” housing project at Kuchaman City in Nagaur district, holding that once a project stands completed and a valid Completion Certificate has been obtained, a refund cannot be granted. 

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma upheld the Rajasthan RERA order, observing. "In such circumstances for well-being of real estate project integrity and stake holders' equity learned Regulatory Authority rightly rejected the claim of refund after post Completion of project"

Real Estate Regulatory Authorities

Haryana RERA

Haryana RERA Holds NBCC Liable To Compensate Shop Owner For Property Loss, Interiors & Mental Agony

Case Title : Mr. Nand Lal v. M/s. NBCC (India) Limited

Case Number : Complaint No. 4616 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 39

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has held that a buyer compelled to vacate a commercial unit due to structural defects is entitled to compensation for loss of property appreciation, interior work expenses, mental agony, and litigation costs, in addition to refund of the purchase price, with interest. 

“That it is unfortunate that the Project has become unhabitable, although, it is pointed out that the Project building still stands tall, albeit with structural cracks. Therefore, it has rendered the performance of the respondent's promises to its allottees impossible”, the Authority held.

Case Title :  Vikas Verma & Ors. v. Imperia Structures Limited

Case Number :  Complaint No. 3191 of 2025

CITATION :  2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 41

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Imperia Structures Ltd to pay lease rental to buyers of a commercial unit in its Gurugram project in line with commitments made under a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. 

A bench led by Chairperson Arun Kumar ordered the builder to pay lease rental to the complainants until the space is leased out to an intended lessee, stating: “Promoter is directed to pay lease rental at the agreed rate i.e. @ Rs. 50 per sq. ft. per month on 500 sq. ft. to the complainants from the date of valid offer of possession i.e. 06.07.2020 till the offered space is leased out to intended lessee, as per the terms of memorandum of understanding dated 06.12.2011.” 

Tamil Nadu RERA

Tamil Nadu RERA Orders Casagrand Millenia to Pay Rs. 3 Lakh for Mental Agony Over Delayed Possession

Case Title : Logeshwaran Janardhanan & Anr. v. M/s. Casagrand Millenia Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : CCP No. 54 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 40

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 10 February, held that a homebuyer is entitled to compensation foxr mental agony caused by delayed possession and directed Casagrand Millenia to pay Rs. 3 Lakh. The Authority also awarded Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs. 

Adjudicating Officer Tmt. N. Uma Maheswari observed: 

“There is no use of executing the sale deed alone in favour of the complainants without handing over the booked unit to them. Ex.A3 — The Construction Agreement is silent about the stagewise payments. In these circumstances, the delay caused by the respondent is not acceptable and thereby the complainants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the mental agony they have sustained due to the delay.” 

Telangana RERA

RERA Registration Owed To Statute, Not Complainant: Telangana RERA Penalises Green Space Properties ₹22Lakh

Case Title : Ch. Venkateswara Rao v. M/s Green Space Properties & Ors.

Case Number : 582/2025/TGRERA

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 32

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has recently imposed a penalty of over Rs 22 lakh on Green Space Properties for advertising and executing sale transactions in its “Green Space Indra Nagar” project without obtaining mandatory registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 

“The language of Section 3(1) is prohibitory and mandatory. Registration of the real estate project is a condition precedent to any act of advertisement, marketing, booking, sale or offer for sale,” the authority observed. 

Telangana RERA Fines Green Space Properties ₹22.05 Lakh For Unregistered Plot Sales

Case Title : Ch. Venkateswara Rao v. Green Space Properties & Ors.

Case Number : Complaint No. 582/2025/TGRERA

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 32

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 24 February held that a developer advertising, marketing, or selling plots without obtaining mandatory registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is liable for penalty. 

A Bench comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), and Members Sri K. Srinivasa Rao and Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu imposed a penalty of Rs. 22.05 lakhs on Green Space Properties for violating the Act. The Bench directed: 

“The Respondents are hereby put on strict notice that continuation of any advertisement, marketing, sale, booking, or offer for sale in violation of Section 3 of the RE (R&D), Act shall result in their being declared as defaulters under the Act, and appropriate proceedings shall be initiated, including enhanced penalties, recommendation for blacklisting, and initiation of action for debarring them from conducting business in the real estate sector throughout the country, in accordance with law.”

Himachal Pradesh RERA

Homebuyer Cannot Claim Refund Of Club Fee Included In Sale Agreement: Himachal Pradesh RERA

Case Title : Sapan Kumar v. Omaxe Chandigarh

Case Number : Complaint No. HPRERA20250026/C

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 38

The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) held that club membership charges clearly included in the Agreement for Sale form part of the agreed cost of the flat, and no refund can be claimed merely because the membership was allegedly optional. 

“Once a charge is expressly mentioned in the Agreement for Sale and is accepted by the allottee/ complainant, the same cannot be treated as optional merely on the basis of 'subsequent conduct or selective enforcement. The rights and liabilities of the parties flow from the Agreement for Sale executed between them and the complainant is bound by the terms of the Agreement for sale which he has voluntarily accepted”, the Authority held.

Tamil Nadu RERA

Tamil Nadu RERA Orders Registration Of Prestige Silver Springs As An 'Ongoing' Project

Case Title : Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association, through its Secretary v. M/s Prestige South City Holdings & Anr.

Case Number : C. No. 89 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 35

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA) on 4 February, directed Prestige South City Holdings to register the project “Prestige Silver Springs” under RERA within 60 days, holding that where villas remained incomplete when the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into force, the project must be treated as an “ongoing project” requiring registration under Section 3. 

The Bench observed: 

“Ultimately, the villas were provided with water sewerage connection only on 06.06.2023. Therefore, the project "Prestige Silver Springs" was not completed on the date of coming into force of RERA Act. Therefore, it is an ongoing project only.”

Punjab RERA

Case Number : Complaint No. 0062 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 36

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 19 February, held that the existence of an arbitration clause or a statutory bar under State law does not oust its jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that in the absence of a valid Completion Certificate and completion of development works, an allottee is entitled to refund with interest for delay in handing over possession. 

The Authority held: 

“At the very outset it is concluded that none of the legal issues raised by the respondents have any merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Vs. Aftab Singh' (Civil Appeals No.23512-23513 of 2017) held that mere presence of an arbitration class does not preclude the jurisdiction of this Authority.”

Karnataka RERA

Karnataka RERA Orders Ozone Developers Group To Refund ₹1.10 Crore To Homebuyer Over Possession Delay

Case Title : Shakeel K Moideenkutty Versus Ozone Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Case Number : CMP/246/2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 37

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a developer in this case could not deduct 20 percent of the amount paid by a homebuyer after failing to deliver possession within the agreed timeline. 

A coram of Member G.R. Reddy directed Ozone Developers Pvt Ltd and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt Ltd to refund about 1.10 crore rupees to a homebuyer who had booked an apartment in the project “Urbana Pavilion” in Bengaluru 

The Authority observed, “It is undisputed fact that the respondents failed to handover possession of the flat to the complainant as per the timeline prescribed in the agreement of sale.”