Landowner Liable For Project Registration Despite Developer Agreement: Rajasthan RERA

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a landowner cannot avoid statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, merely because a development agreement assigns construction and other development responsibilities to a developer.

The authority penalised developer Siddharth Landmark LLP and landowner Brajesh Saxena ₹1 lakh each for violating the registration requirement under the Act in connection with the unregistered multi-storey residential project “99 Avenue” in Jaipur. It also directed them to apply for registration of the project within 45 days.

Chairperson Veenu Gupta observed:

“The contractual allocation of particular development responsibilities to the developer cannot, by itself, absolve the landowner from the statutory obligations arising under the Act in respect of the project.”

The project, located at B-99-A, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, comprised 12 residential units.

The proceedings originated from a complaint alleging that K.D. Developers was developing 12 flats at the project and had commenced bookings without obtaining registration under the Act. It was also alleged that the requisite permissions from the Jaipur Development Authority and other competent authorities had not been obtained.

The authority issued a show-cause notice on September 12, 2024 under Sections 3 and 59 over the project's failure to obtain registration, along with an interim direction under Section 36 restraining further booking, sale or purchase.

Following directions issued on March 12, 2025, an inspection found a basement, ground floor and six additional floors. The May 5 report recorded 12 residential units across approximately 970 square metres, with the structural framework complete and interior and exterior work continuing.

It also recorded Siddharth Landmark LLP's involvement and Saxena as a landowner. Saxena admitted signing the February 8, 2023 Development Agreement.

His role, he contended, was confined to that of a landowner. He also maintained that he had not participated in the project's management, promotion, marketing, or day-to-day affairs.

The authority rejected this defence.

The Development Agreement identified Saxena as the First Party/Landowner and Siddharth Landmark LLP, through its partners Nischal Bhandari and Pradeep Moolrajani, as the Second Party/Developer. It provided for the constructed flats to be divided between the developer and the landowner and assigned responsibility for the sale of all flats to the developer.

Saxena retained a 58.33% share in the flats to be constructed. The authority held that he therefore had a continuing proprietary interest in the development of the project.

It observed that the contractual allocation of particular development responsibilities to Siddharth Landmark LLP could not, by itself, absolve Saxena of his statutory obligations under the Act.

The authority also held that the violation could not be treated as a “mere technical or inadvertent lapse”. The project was under active development and comprised 12 residential units despite the requirement of registration.

The continued development without registration, it held, established a “wilful contravention” of Section 3 of the Act.

Proceedings against Kunal Daga, another landowner, were dropped. The authority found no material establishing his role in the development arrangement, construction or sale of the project.

His “mere identification as a landowner”, the authority held, was insufficient to fasten liability in the absence of material establishing his participation in or nexus with the development.

The order also recorded that the proceedings had initially been instituted against K.D. Developers. However, the subsequent site inspection report and Development Agreement identified Siddharth Landmark LLP as the developer undertaking the development of the project.

No material was placed on record establishing any continuing role of K.D. Developers in the development or sale of the project. The authority therefore determined liability on the basis of the material subsequently brought on record.

RERA held that Siddharth Landmark LLP, as the developer responsible for the construction and development, and Saxena, as the landowner with a substantive share in the constructed project, could not escape the requirement of registration under Section 3.

Under Section 59, Siddharth Landmark LLP and Saxena were each directed to pay a penalty of ₹1 lakh. The respondents were also directed to apply for registration of “99 Avenue” within 45 days and comply with the requisite statutory formalities.

For Authority: Surendra Prasad Meena, Assistant Director (Prosecution).

For Respondent (K.D. Developers): Advocates Mitesh Rathore, Bhupendra Bhardwaj.