Punjab RERA Holds Private Property Sale Disputes Between Individuals Outside RERA Jurisdiction

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that disputes arising from private agreements to sell between individuals, where the seller is neither a promoter nor a real estate agent, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Dismissing a complaint filed by Gurcharan Kaur and Ramandeep Singh Bhatia seeking refund of the outstanding ₹13.20 lakh paid under an agreement to purchase a commercial plot from Mohali resident Dheeraj Sharma, the Authority held that the complainants had failed to establish that they were "allottees" under the Act and could not invoke RERA's adjudicatory jurisdiction.

Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed, "Here, the complainants have failed to satisfy that they are allottees of the project of the respondent and the seller is in default of its obligation. The overwhelming objective of RERA is to benefit allottees/promoters and protect them against the frauds committed by promoters in real estate projects. This is a case of purely between two private parties and does not come within preview of RERD Act, 2016."

The dispute arose from an Agreement to Sell dated December 19, 2024, under which the complainants agreed to purchase SCO No. 36 in Sector 123, A Block Market, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, SAS Nagar (Mohali), from Sharma for ₹70 lakh. The sale was to be completed between February 20 and March 30, 2025.

According to the complainants, they initially paid ₹15 lakh and later made additional payments, taking the total amount paid to ₹28.06 lakh.

The buyers alleged that Sharma failed to complete the sale. They said that although he later entered into a compromise before the Economic Offences Wing of the Punjab Police in Mohali and issued post-dated cheques, he repaid only ₹14.80 lakh, leaving ₹13.20 lakh outstanding.

They then approached Punjab RERA under Section 31 of the Act seeking refund of the remaining amount.

While examining whether the complaint was maintainable, the Authority held that anyone invoking Section 31 must first establish an allottee-promoter relationship under the Act.

It found that the transaction was a private sale between two individuals and that Sharma was not a "promoter" as defined under the Act. As a result, the complainants also could not be treated as "allottees" entitled to invoke RERA's jurisdiction.

The Authority further observed that the Agreement to Sell relied upon by the complainants was a private contractual arrangement between two individuals and not an agreement between a promoter and an allottee covered by the RERA framework.

Clarifying that allegations of fraud alone could not confer jurisdiction under the Act, the Authority observed,

"In this case, fraud has been alleged against the seller who is neither the promoter nor the real estate broker. In this case, it is not within power of this authority to adjudicate the issues between a buyer and a seller who is not a promoter. Therefore, the case of the complainants does not come within preview of this authority."

By its order dated June 30, 2026, the Authority dismissed the complaint as not maintainable under the RERA Act.