RERA Cases Monthly Digest: January 2026

HP High Court Questions Shifting Of RERA Office From Shimla To Dharamshala; Interim Order Restraining Shift To Continue

Case Name: Naresh Sharma v/s Union of India and others

Case No.: CWPIL No. 38 of 2018

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 12

The Himachal Pradesh High Court admitted a petition challenging the decision of the State Government to shift the Real Estate Regulatory Authority office from Shimla to Dharamshala. The Court remarked that RERA was a small institution with limited manpower and that the State ought to consider relocating larger offices instead of burdening a statutory authority with minimal staff. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “the interim order is likely to continue, keeping in view the number of employees to be shifted to the projects, which are not even remotely linked to Kangra as it would be a humongous task for the developers as such to firstly co-ordinate with the RERA office at Dharamshala and then with the other offices which give necessary permissions which are placed at Shimla.” The Court noted that the districts of Solan, Shimla and Sirmaur collectively account for 80% of RERA-registered projects in Himachal Pradesh, whereas, there are only 20 projects in Kangra.

Allahabad High Court

Interest For Delayed Possession Under RERA Can't Be Waived Through Private Settlement: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Lko. Development Authority Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Rohit Singh v. Sushma Shukla

Case Number : RERA Appeal Defective No. - 125 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 7

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that a private settlement between a promoter and a homebuyer cannot override mandatory statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Dismissing an appeal filed by the Lucknow Development Authority, a single bench of Justice Prashant Kumar upheld an order directing payment of statutory interest to a buyer for delay in handing over possession of a flat.

The court said the law leaves no scope for promoters to avoid this obligation through private agreements. It underlined that an allottee who continues with a delayed project is entitled to interest till possession is handed over, and that the duty to pay such interest is cast on the promoter by statute. “The legislative mandate insofar such allottees is that they are entitled to interest on their deposit till the handing over of possession of the unit. A mandatory statutory obligation is cast upon the promoter to pay the interest to such allottees,” the court observed.

RERA Tribunal Order Unsustainable Where Heard by One Bench And Pronounced By Another: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Ar Landcraft Llp Ltd. Liability Partnership Thru. its Auth. Sign. v. U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Thru. its Registrar Lko. & Ors.

Case Number : Matters Under Article 227 No. - 71 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 8

The Allahabad High Court set aside a judgment of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, holding that a case heard by one bench cannot be decided by another bench if one of its members did not hear the arguments. The court said such a judgment is unsustainable in law and goes against fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that the bench that hears a matter must also decide it. It added that views of members who heard the case cannot be taken after a judgment has already been signed and delivered by another bench.

"A judgment in a matter heard by a three member Bench cannot be authored and delivered by a two member Bench, one member of which had not heard the submissions in the matter. Views of the other members. who had heard submissions in the matter cannot be taken after the judgment has been signed and delivered by another Bench", it said.

Further, it stated that “delivery of judgment by a member who has not heard submissions in the appeals is not a mere irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal which does not affect the merits of the case, rather such a judgment is nullity in the eyes of law, as it has been passed in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, which require the Bench hearing a matter to decide the same", it said.

Jammu and Kashmir High Court

J&K High Court Sets Aside Interim Order Agasint Developer Passed by Special Tribunal Without Jurisdiction

Case Title : Royal Omkar Nests Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

Case Number : WP(C) No. 3765/2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 2

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside a status quo order passed against a real estate developer by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, which was functioning as the interim Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Justice Rahul Bharti held that once a tribunal acknowledges that it lacks jurisdiction, it cannot issue or continue any interim or supplementary directions. Any such directions, the court said, are “nugatory in the eyes of law”. Justice Bharti held that the status quo direction was “nothing but nugatory in the eyes of law”. The court reiterated that Section 43(3) of the RERA Act mandates that an appellate tribunal must consist of both a judicial member and a technical or administrative member. Accordingly, the High Court partially allowed the writ petition and set aside the status quo direction relating to the project's common areas. However, it did not interfere with the Tribunal's decision granting liberty to the allottees to file a fresh appeal before a properly constituted bench.

Kerala High Court

Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Can Remand Cases Despite No Express Power Under RERA: Kerala High Court

Case Title : Jacob Eapen Sam & Ors. v. Varghese Nettikadan & Ors.

Case Number : MSA Nos. 12 & 15 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 19

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has the power to remand matters to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for fresh consideration, even though the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, does not expressly provide for such a power. The court dismissed appeals challenging a remand order passed by the tribunal and upheld the direction for reconsideration.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim said the tribunal's appellate powers are wide enough to permit a remand where reconsideration is required. The court noted that Section 44(3) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to pass such orders as it thinks fit and that this provision must be understood in light of the object of the legislation. “In the light of the object of the enactment, viz., a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism, it could only be held that the Tribunal is having wide powers under the Act to mould reliefs for effective and complete adjudication of the matter,” the court said.

Uttarakhand High Court

Landowner Who Transfers Development Rights Is Jointly Liable To Homebuyers: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title : Raj Kumar Saini v. District Magistrate, Haridwar & Ors.

Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 45 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (UTT) 3

The Uttarakhand High Court has recently reiterated that a landowner who hands over land and extensive development rights to a builder cannot avoid responsibility towards homebuyers and can be subjected to recovery proceedings even if the flats were sold by the developer. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Ashish Naithani said liability towards homebuyers does not rest on the builder alone.

"The liability, as against the allottees, from whom money was realized by the developer solely on the basis of the rights flowing under the development agreement would be joint and several, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to defeat the lawful claim of the allottees on the technical grounds, which have been raised before us.", it said.

After examining the development agreement, the High Court found that the landowner had, in effect, transferred almost all rights in the property. “The petitioner has purportedly transferred all his rights in the property in favour of the developer,” the court said.

REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS

Delhi–Chandigarh REAT

Delhi–Chandigarh REAT Quashes ₹10 Lakh Penalty on DDA After RERA Missed 30-Day Project Registration Deadline

Case Title : Delhi Development Authority v. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, NCT of Delhi

Case Number : Appeal No. 190/REAT/2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (DL) 5

Enforcing the 30-day deadline already prescribed under the RERA law, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for NCT of Delhi and UT of Chandigarh has held that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot keep project registration applications pending indefinitely. Setting aside a Rs 10 lakh penalty imposed on the Delhi Development Authority, the tribunal said the Authority must either approve or reject an application within that period. A bench led by Judicial Member Lorren Bamniyal said the statute leaves no room for administrative discretion on timelines. The tribunal said the law must be applied as written.

"The words of the statute are always to be treated sacrosanct as they represent the legislative intent. Their literal and plain meaning is not required to be interfered with unless the provision runs contrary to the statement of objects and reasons of the statute or is palpably in violation of any other law.", the Tribunal said.

West Bengal REAT

Carpet Area Means Net Usable Space, Cannot Be Diluted By Engineering Tolerance: WBREAT

Case Title: PS Group Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Ayush Tradelinks Private Limited

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 2

Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 013/2025 and WBREAT/APPEAL No. 016/2025

The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) held that “carpet area” must strictly conform to the statutory definition of net usable floor area. It ruled that promoters cannot rely on tolerance clauses, plaster thickness, or engineering explanations to justify a shortfall in the promised area. A coram of Chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and Administrative Member

Dr. Subrat Mukherjee observed that “the intention of law maker was to protect the interest of consumers in real estate sector apart from allowing engineering tolerance, construction adjustments etc. which may be required in real estate project. So, the tolerance is allowed only in sanctioned plan, layout plan, fixtures and amenities which will primarily impact common facilities, structure and construction of building than the individual flat of consumers for which he has signed agreement and paid for allocated carpet area at unit cost". 

WBREAT Upholds Interim Ban On Forum Projects From Selling or Transferring Kolkata 'Atmosphere' Project

Case Title: Forum Projects Private Limited & Ors. v. Chittaranjan Choudhury & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 1

Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 008/2025

The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld an interim order against real estate developer Forum Projects Private Limited. The order restrains the company from selling, transferring, or otherwise dealing with any part of its luxury residential project “Atmosphere” on Kolkata's EM Bypass. A bench of Chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and Administrative Member Dr. Subrat Mukherjee dismissed the developer's appeal. It held that “the interim directions passed by the learned Regulatory Authority are justified and it should not be interfered with at this stage.” It made it clear that contractual clauses could not override the law, observing that “the maxim 'there will be no estoppel against statute' neatly applies to the matter on hand.” The tribunal also clarified that proceedings under real estate law are independent of private arbitration disputes and that the regulator was well within its powers to step in and grant interim protection.

Madhya Pradesh REAT

Landowner In Joint Venture With Developer Not A Homebuyer Under RERA: Madhya Pradhesh REAT

Case Title: Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh

Case Number: Appeal No. 131/2020

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 4

The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) held that a landowner who enters into a joint venture with a developer for a real estate project cannot claim the status of an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and must instead be treated as a co-promoter. A bench of Chairman Justice V.P.S. Chauhan and Judicial Member P.C. Gupta said the RERA Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the dispute was not between a promoter and a homebuyer. The tribunal observed that “a co-promoter cannot be considered as an allottee, even if there is any condition for receiving consideration under the agreement.” Referring to the definition of “promoter” under the Act, it held that a person who contributes land and participates in the development assumes the role of a promoter. It further clarified that "If any dispute arises between the co-promoters in relation to the agreement dated 22/08/2012 or if there is any breach in regards to the joint venture agreement between the parties or promoters, they can take the recourse of civil suit or consumer redressal forum but the dispute would not come under the ambit and scope of the Act."

Enforcement Officer Not An 'Authority' Under RERA Act, Orders Have No Force of Law: Madhya Pradesh REAT

Case Title: Parth Developer v. Yogesh Mahajan & Anr.

Case Number: Appeal No. 32/2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 3

The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) held that an Enforcement Officer under the RERA law is not “the Authority” and therefore has no power to direct a developer to complete project amenities. The tribunal ruled that any such order is without jurisdiction and has no force in law. The bench, comprising Chairman Justice V.P.S. Chauhan and Judicial Member P.C. Gupta, while dealing with an appeal filed by Parth Developer against a 2022 order of a RERA Enforcement Officer, observed that “Enforcement Officer is not an Authority,” and added that “if any order passed by the Enforcement Officer, who is not having a jurisdiction to pass that order, the order can be categorized as coram non judice having no force and it is nonest."

Maharashtra REAT 

MahaREAT Grants Interim Relief to Homebuyer, Says RERA Jurisdiction Not Ousted by Arbitration Clause

Case Title: Sanju Daulatraj Desai v. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.

Case No.: Misc. Application No. 770 of 2025 in Appeal No. AT06/00774/2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 5

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), Mumbai, granted interim relief to a homebuyer of the "Rustomjee Crown" project, holding that an arbitration clause in an allocation letter cannot be deemed to oust RERA's jurisdictional power. Additionally, in order to avoid future third-party complications, the Tribunal imposed a status quo on the subject flat and held that a developer cannot demand more than 10% of the consideration without a registered agreement for sale. Relying on the Bombay High Court decision in M/s. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rahul Pagariya, the Tribunal led by a two-member bench, comprising of S. S. Shinde J. (Chairperson) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member), held that "the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority is not ousted, even if the agreement between the promoter and the allottee contains arbitration clause."

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

Himachal Pradesh RERA

Cross-Examination In Real Estate Proceedings Is An Exception, Not The Rule: Himachal Pradesh RERA

Case Title : Mrs. Ranjana Chaturvedi vs. M/s Rajdeep and company infrastructure Private Limited

Case Number : Complaint no. HPRERA2024029/C

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 21

On 16 January 2026, the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) rejected a builder's request for cross-examination, ruling that it is an exception under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (The Act), and not a routine requirement. The Authority observed that the primary objective of the Act is to provide expeditious relief to homebuyers, which cannot be delayed by civil court procedures. It emphasised that the authority is duty bound to observe principles of natural justice and application of evidence Act is therefore not necessitated at every stage of proceedings.

Regarding cross-examination, the Bench observed that there is no provision under the Act, Rules, or Regulations for cross-examination of the parties. It noted “cross examination is an exception, not the rule” and that if it were permitted routinely, “the entire purpose of the Act in providing expeditious relief to the allottees would be defeated”.

Himachal Pradesh RERA Orders Unimaxx Builders To Pay ₹6.42 Lakh Pending Dues To Homebuyers

Case Title: Vandana Tuteja & Anr. v. M/s Unimaxx Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Execution Petition No. 27/2024 in Complaint No. HIM/TP/HPRERA/Complaints/2018/VOL-I/2018

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 5

The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) upheld an execution order directing Unimaxx Builders to refund Rs 6.42 lakh to homebuyers, holding that objections raised by the developer were a “deliberate attempt to prevent the enforcement of a valid and final order” and were “patently misconceived.” The authority, comprising Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Members Amit Kashyap and Vidur Mehta, ruled that the refund was payable under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, which grants allottees an absolute right to seek a refund along with statutory interest where possession is not delivered by the promoter. The authority rejected the developers' attempts at shifting the blame or reopening the case's merits. The authority stated that executing court must not go beyond the decree and that several objections are frequently filed "in abuse of process of law." The authority emphasized that the liability to reimburse could not be questioned at the execution stage and that the previous decision had attained “finality.”

CPC Provision For First-Stage Rejection Of Complaints Not Applicable To RERA If Actionable Claims Exist: HP RERA

Case Title: Bithu Indrajit Basu v. Rajdeep & Anr.

Case Number: HPERA2024012/CMA No.: 1-R2/32-2024

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 4

The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) has held that a complaint disclosing a prima facie cause of action under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be rejected at the threshold by invoking a Civil Procedure Code provision meant for rejection of complaints. A coram comprising Chairperson R D Dhiman and Members Amit Kashyap and Vidur Mehta, in an order dated December 22, 2025, said RERA proceedings are summary in nature and factual disputes must be decided on merits.

The authority observed that “Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be invoked only when, on the face of the complaint, no cause of action is disclosed or the complaint is barred by law,” and not where actionable facts are pleaded. On the applicability of the CPC, the authority said the RERA Act specifically lists the CPC provisions that apply to its proceedings, holding that the provisions are expressly included and not excluded. It concluded that “the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC fails to satisfy any of the grounds prescribed under the said provision and, moreover, has no applicability to the proceedings of RERA.”

Maharashtra RERA

MahaRERA Orders Refund of ₹1.46 Crore Forfeited, As Kalpataru Later Resold Flat

Case Title : Sanjay Navinchandra Choksi & Anr. v. M/S. Kalpataru Property Ventures LLP

Case Number : Complaint No. 58/2025/TGRERA

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 20

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that Kalpataru Property Ventures LLP could not forfeit over Rs 1.46 crore from two homebuyers after accepting more than the legally permitted 10% without a registered agreement for sale and then sell the same flat to a third party while retaining the money. MahaRERA said the promoter could not be permitted to take advantage of its own statutory breach.

“No party can benefit from its own wrong,” the Authority observed. “Mere allegations of investment intent, without proof of speculative resale or commercial dealing by the Complainants, cannot divest them of statutory protection under RERA. Therefore, the Complainants are held to be allottees entitled to invoke provision of RERA.”

Collective Grievances Under RERA Must Be Filed by Homebuyers' Associations, Not Individuals: MahaRERA

Case Title: Alok Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Intofinity Promoters Private Limited

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 16

Case Number: Complaint No. CC12502984

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) held that collective grievances affecting a real estate project must be pursued by a homeowners' association or with the backing of a majority of allottees, and not by a few individuals acting in their personal capacity. Dismissing a complaint filed by five homebuyers of the 'Kohinoor Kaleido – Phase 1' project in Pune, a bench comprising Member Mahesh Pathak held that “In the absence of such authorization, issues of a collective nature cannot be adjudicated in a complaint filed by a few allottees in their individual capacity.” MahaRERA siding with the developer, held that the reliefs sought related to matters affecting all allottees and, in certain respects, the project as a whole.

The homebuyers, it noted, had failed to show that they were authorised by a majority of allottees or by any registered association. On that limited ground, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint without examining the merits of the allegations. It granted liberty to the homebuyers to file a fresh complaint limited to their individual grievances or to approach the Authority through a duly constituted association of allottees for collective issues.

MahaRERA Declines To Rule On Whether Puzzle Parking Is A Common Area

Case Title: Yuvraj Kisan Chaudhari & Ors. v. Neelkanth Palm Realty & Anr.

Case Number: Complaint No. CC006000000196705

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 8

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a complaint by homebuyers of a Thane housing project seeking a ruling on whether puzzle parking qualifies as a common area under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, holding that it has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. “No provisions of the said Act provide this Authority with jurisdiction to decide a particular amenity as common or not. In the absence of the jurisdiction, this Authority restrains itself from passing any order in this behalf.,” the authority said in an order dated January 5, 2026. On examining the definition of “common areas” under Section 2(n) of the Act, the authority observed that the provision expressly refers to basements and open parking spaces. However, it noted that the Act does not address mechanical parking systems such as puzzle parking.

Tamil Nadu RERA

Tamil Nadu RERA Mandates Three Bank Accounts Per Real Estate Project To Track Homebuyer Funds

In order to ensure that money collected from homebuyers for one real estate project is not diverted to another, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA) has issued an order requiring promoters/builders to operate three separate and designated bank accounts for every registered project. The order, issued on December 12, 2025, will apply to all project registration and resubmission applications received from January 1, 2026 onwards. The Authority said the new framework is meant to bring the entire flow of buyer funds under regulatory oversight, starting from the point of collection.

It held that “there is no mechanism to monitor the collection account. Further, in some cases, promoter maintains a separate collection account for each project whereas in some cases, the collection account may serve multiple projects." Promoters will now have to give the authority full details of all project loans, whether secured or unsecured. This includes information on the lender, the amount sanctioned and disbursed, outstanding dues, mortgage details, and a chartered accountant's certification that the loan has been used only for the project. Promoters will also need prior written approval from TNRERA for any change in the project's designated bank accounts.

Karnataka RERA

Circular : K-RERA To Levy Penalties On Builders For Non-Submission Of Annual Audit Reports For FY 2024–25

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has issued a circular mandating the imposition of annual penalties on promoters who have failed to submit their annual audit reports for their housing projects for the Financial Year 2024–2025. Referring to its powers under Sections 38(1) and 60 of the Act, the Authority said that promoters who failed to meet the December 31, 2025 deadline would be liable to penalties.

The penalty will apply for every financial year of default and will depend on the project's total estimated cost. Under the penalty schedule set out in the circular, projects with an estimated cost of less than Rs. 25 crore will attract a penalty of Rs. 20,000. Projects with an estimated cost above Rs. 25 crore and up to Rs. 50 crore will be fined Rs. 25,000. For projects above Rs. 50 crore and up to Rs. 100 crore, the penalty is Rs. 50,000. Projects with an estimated cost exceeding Rs. 100 crore will be liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The Authority stated that promoters must submit the pending audit report for FY 2024–25 and pay the applicable penalty through the RERA e-payment system, which has been enabled on the K-RERA portal under the annual audit report submission option.

K-RERA Holds Welfare Societies Collecting Funds For Plots as 'Promoters,' Orders ₹22.45 Lakh Refund to Home Buyer

Case Title: Shobitha R v. President, Sankalpa Welfare Society (R.)

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 13

Case Number : Complaint No: 00547/2025

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) ordered a Welfare Society to reimburse an allottee over ₹22 lakh with interest for the entire cost of a plot in an unregistered project. The Authority, led by Chairman Rakesh Singh, on 12th January, 2026, made it clear that if a welfare organisation develops and sells real estate, it qualifies as 'Promoter' under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The Bench clarified that it cannot avoid its duties by claiming to be a non-commercial company.

The Bench observed that "mere registration as a welfare society does not immunize an entity from compliance with statutory obligations under other laws, including RERA, if it undertakes activities that amount to real estate development and sale."

The Authority further noted that the society had collected of funds without registration and had blatantly violated statutory obligations under sections 3, 4 and 13 of the Act constituting misrepresentation and unauthorised real estate activity. It dismissed the argument regarding the pending civil suit, stating that K-RERA has "independent jurisdiction under Section 31 to address statutory violations, regardless of parallel civil proceedings."

Karnataka RERA Orders Ozone Infra to Pay Rs 19.87 Lakh Interest to Homebuyers for Four-Year Possession Delay

Case Title : Baishaki Das & Another Versus M/s. Ozone Infra Developers & Others

Case Number - Complaint No: CMP/495/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 2

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has directed Ozone Infra Developers to pay Rs 19.87 lakh as interest for the delayed handover of an apartment to two homebuyers who have been waiting for possession for over four years beyond the promised date. The authority also asked the developer to hand over possession at the earliest after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. The complaint was decided ex parte after the builder failed to file any objections despite being given repeated opportunities.

Holding that there was delay, the authority held that the buyers were entitled to interest for the delayed period under Section 18 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016. It directed the developer to pay interest from June 30, 2021, until the date possession is handed over along with the Occupancy Certificate.

Karnataka RERA Orders Casagrande Garden City To Refund Rs 52.74 Lakh To Homebuyer Over Unfair GST Charges

Case Title: Ramkumar & Anr Versus Casagrande Garden City Builders Private Limited

Case Number: Complaint No. 00729/2024

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 3

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has directed Casagrande Garden City Builders Private Limited to refund Rs. 52.74 lakh to a Bengaluru homebuyer after finding that the builder indulged in unfair trade practices by repeatedly changing the cost breakup and inflating the GST component. The order was passed by a bench headed by Member G.R. Reddy, who noted that the conduct of the promoter was manifest on record. Agreeing with the homebuyers, the authority held that the claim remained unchallenged as the builder did not file any written objections. Referring to apex court rulings on Section 18 of the RERA Act, the authority reiterated that an allottee has an unqualified right to seek a refund of the amount with interest when the promoter/developer violates its obligations.

Bihar RERA

'Coming Soon' Posters Are Ads, Bihar RERA Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Developer For Advertising Unregistered Project

Case Title: Authorised Representative of RERA v. M/s Alphabet Infra Pvt. Ltd. @ M/s PRU-RLDA Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 7

The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that even “Coming Soon” banners, pamphlets and site notice boards amount to advertising under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. It, therefore imposed a Rs 1 lakh penalty on PRU-RLDA Projects Pvt. Ltd. for promoting an unregistered project. In an order dated December 24, 2025, Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh held, “The material placed on record, consisting of a pamphlet inviting bookings for the project and/ or displaying the upcoming project through a notice board kept at place for general public to see, unequivocally falls within the definition of 'advertisement' as provided under Section 2(b) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.”

It further observed, “The sale of units to the public without obtaining mandatory registration reflects a deliberate attempt to circumvent the statutory regulatory framework and defeat the transparency and accountability sought to be ensured under the Act.”

Punjab RERA