LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Monthly Digest: October 2026
Shivani PS
3 Nov 2026 8:41 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad High Court
Case Title Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Rohit Singh v. Shivaji Singh
Case Number RERA APPEAL No. - 118 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 87
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a clause in a development authority's brochure permitting it to deduct 20% of the registration amount and return the balance without interest where an allottee withdraws after allotment is a one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable term of the contract.
It held that the Lucknow Development Authority was not entitled to the benefit of such a clause.
Clause 8.2 of the brochure of the Lucknow Development Authority provided that where the money is withdrawn after allotment of the property, 20% of the registration amount would be deducted and the remaining amount refunded without interest.
Justice Saurabh Lavania held:
“The Clause 8.2 is not in consonance with the basic principles of the law of Contract as to the view of this Court the same is ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable term of the Contract. Therefore, the Applicant - L.D.A. is not entitled to the benefit based upon Clause 8.2, as prayed.”
No Limitation To Claim Delay Interest Where Allottee Continues With Project: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Sarafaraz Ahmad v. Shyam Sundar Agarwal
Case Number : RERA APPEAL No. - 37 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 82
The Allahabad High Court on 23 September held that an allottee who continues with a real estate project can claim interest for every month of delay in possession, as the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 prescribes no limitation for raising such a claim.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction to pay delay interest, holding that the expression “demand” in the proviso to Section 18(1) cannot defeat an allottee's statutory right to compensation. It observed:
“A plain reading of Section 18(1) shows that no limitation or prescribed time frame has been provided by the legislature for raising a claim for delay interest where the allottee continues with the project. The expression “demand” occurring in the provision cannot be interpreted to defeat the substantive statutory right conferred upon an allottee to receive compensation for delayed possession.”
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Upholds Unishire Property Attachment, Says Final K-RERA Order Can't Be Reopened
Case Title M/s Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number Writ Petition No. 6366 of 2025 (KLR-RES)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 197
The Karnataka High Court on 6 October held that a developer cannot challenge a consequential property attachment after its appeal against the underlying Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) order has been dismissed and the order has attained finality.
Justice E.S. Indiresh dismissed Unishire Promoters Private Limited's writ petition and upheld the attachment of its property in Bengaluru to recover unpaid dues owed to a homebuyer. The Bench observed:
“In that view of the matter, as the petitioners herein have not produced any material as to challenge the order passed by respondent No.4 and as the said order has attained finality the finality on 23.08.2025 as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, that the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the original order passed by respondent No.4, the petitioners cannot, at this stage, challenge the consequential order of attachment, as bad in law.”
Karnataka High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Occupancy Certificates For 33 Raffles Park Villas
Case Title Raffles Residency Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number Writ Petition No. 3640 of 2023 (LB-RES)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 194
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the cancellation of occupancy certificates issued for 33 villas in Raffles Residency Private Limited's Raffles Park project in Bengaluru, finding that the project was incomplete and unfit for occupation when the certificates were issued.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recalled an earlier order that had restored the certificates, finding that the developer had suppressed material documentary evidence bearing on the project's completion.
The court observed that the documents were within the developer's own knowledge and custody and that the withheld material directly affected the factual basis on which relief had been granted.
Bombay High Court
Housing Society Not Liable for Developer's RERA Obligations As Landowner: Bombay High Court
Case Title Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Tridhaatu Maruthi Developers LLP & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 26942 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 580
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a housing society as a landowner cannot be held liable for a developer's obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), merely because the developer entered into agreements for sale with flat purchasers under a redevelopment agreement.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker granted interim relief to Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, allowing it to appoint a new developer. The court also directed payment of ₹7.35 crore in unpaid transit rent and clearance of ₹1.11 crore in statutory dues.
The court observed, “However, none of the provisions of RERA renders the owner of the freehold or leasehold interest in the land, who enters into a development agreement with a developer, liable for discharging the developer's obligations under RERA merely because the developer subsequently enters into agreements for sale with third-party flat purchasers on the basis of such development agreement.”
Are All Promoter-Allottee RERA Disputes Non-Arbitrable? Bombay HC Refers Question To Larger Bench
Case Title Rensar Infra Private Limited v. Rais Kasam Shaikh & Ors
Case Number Arbitration Application No. 205 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 550
The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether every dispute between a real estate promoter and an individual flat buyer under an agreement for sale governed by RERA is non-arbitrable as a class.
The court will consider whether arbitrability must instead be examined by looking at the subject matter, nature of relief and the matters RERA authorities are empowered to determine.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “The issue is whether the existence of a statutory forum under RERA and its public nature takes the entire promoter-allottee class outside private arbitration, or whether the Court has to examine the exact relief, subject matter and nature of dispute in every case.”
The court, therefore, referred the question to a larger bench.
"Whether, having regard to Sections 79, 88 and 89 and the other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a dispute arising between an individual promoter and allottee under an Agreement for Sale containing an arbitration clause is, merely because the relationship and transaction are governed by RERA, nonarbitrable as a class, or whether the arbitrability must be examined by reference to the subject matter, nature of relief and the matters which the statutory authorities under RERA are empowered to determine; and, consequently, whether the conclusion in paragraph 63(i) of Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Rajendrakumar Pagariya, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3871, is to be understood as a general rule of non-arbitrability of all such disputes, notwithstanding the reasoning in Abhay Damodar Kanhere v. Morya Infraconstruct Pvt. Ltd, Arbitration Petition No.148 of 2024, and the principles governing limited scrutiny under Section 11 as held by the Supreme Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd,(2024) 5 SCC 313, Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation ,(2021) 2 SCC 1 and NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd,(2023) 9 SCC 385?”
Rejection of Building Plans Not Force Majeure For Delayed Possession Interest: Bombay High Court
Case Title DNM Trustee Services Private Limited v. Victoria Enterprises Limited & Ors.
Case Number Interim Application (L) No. 2956 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No. 39 of 2015
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 603
The Bombay High Court on 23 October held that rejection of building plans by a planning authority does not constitute a force majeure event absolving a real estate promoter of liability to pay interest for delayed possession. Further, that interest for delayed possession can be awarded through summary judgment without a full trial or oral evidence, unlike compensation, which may require evidentiary adjudication.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly allowed an application filed by DNM Trustee Services Private Limited against Victoria Enterprises Limited, directing the developer to pay simple interest at 9% per annum on Rs. 5.51 crore for a delay of nearly 12 years in handing over two commercial units in Mumbai. The Bench observed:
“In any case, it is the duty of the promoter to get the plans sanctioned and to construct the building accordingly. If the promoter submits faulty plans and invites rejection, the allottee cannot be made to suffer. Thus, rejection of plan by the Planning Authority does not constitute a force majeure event.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Tamil Nadu REAT
Companies Not Bound By Original RERA Order Cannot Be Added During Its Enforcement: Tamil Nadu REAT
Case Title M/s Selene Estates Limited v. M/s Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association – Jalladianpettai & Others
Case Number Appeal Nos. 88 and 89 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 76
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 7 October held that parties not bound by an original order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) cannot be impleaded in proceedings to execute that order, and partly allowed two appeals filed by Selene Estates Limited.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu set aside the impleadment of Lakisha Real Estate Limited, Airmid Infrastructure Limited and Ozone Facility Management Private Limited in execution proceedings initiated by the Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association, but upheld the impleadment of three directors of Selene Estates. It observed:
“When the original order was passed as against the appellant and the respondents 2 & 3, it is not binding on the other respondents who were not parties in the original complaint in C.No.29 of 2023. A Decree Holder cannot be allowed to implead new parties in piecemeal in the Execution Proceedings.”
Maharashtra REAT
Complaint Filed Before Possession Deadline Alone Can't Bar Relief To Homebuyer: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title Vikram Kapoor v. M/s. Man Realty Limited & Ors.
Case Number Appeal No. AT006000000053435 of 2022
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 77
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), on 9 October, held that a homebuyer's complaint cannot be rejected as premature merely because the contractual possession deadline had not expired when the complaint was filed, particularly when the developer subsequently failed to hand over possession.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara set aside the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority's (MahaRERA) order rejecting the homebuyer's complaint as premature and partly allowed his appeal. They observed:
“We are of the view that the simple fact that the complaint was instituted before the expiry of the contractual date of possession cannot be the sole determinant of the Appellant's entitlement to relief in the present Appeal.”
Promoter's Pre-Deposit Can Be Released To Homebuyer After Promoter's Appeal Fails: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title Sachin Prakash Dhavle, Authorised Partner, M/s P.R. Builders & Developers v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number Misc. Application No. 693 of 2026 in Appeal No. AT05/00605 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 75
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a promoter's pre-deposit made while challenging an order can be released to the allottee (homebuyer) once the appeal does not survive.
The tribunal observed that the pre-deposit safeguards the amount already determined in the allottee's favour. It also prevents the allottee from having to go “from pillar to post” to recover the amount if the promoter's appeal fails.
The Tribunal, comprising Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, allowed the allottee to withdraw the pre-deposit made by P.R. Builders & Developers after rejecting its authorised partner Sachin Prakash Dhavle's plea to condone a 674-day delay in challenging the order passed in non-compliance proceedings.
Karnataka REAT
Karnataka REAT Upholds Order Directing Homebuyer To Pay ₹2.45 Lakh For Bengaluru Flat
Case Title Geethanjali M. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ALN Buildtech
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 114 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 78
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has upheld an order directing a homebuyer to pay ₹2.45 lakh in outstanding dues for a flat in ALN Buildtech's ALN Arambh project in Bengaluru..
Dismissing the homebuyer's appeal, a Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. held that compensation claims requiring a detailed inquiry must be pursued before the Adjudicating Officer, while grievances concerning common amenities must be raised through the Apartment Owners' Association or another competent legal forum.
The Tribunal observed:
“Thus, taking into consideration the fact that some of the relief sought by the Allottee require an enquiry by the Adjudicating Officer and some of the reliefs which are in the nature of common amenities are required to be sought through the Association of the Allottees, the Authority has rightly directed the Allottee to file necessary complaint through the Association or before such competent Legal Forum.”
Reconstituted Real Estate Firm Cannot Escape Liability To Refund Homebuyer: Karnataka REAT
Case Title East North VVS Realty v. B.K. Nagaraj and Others
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 60/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 80
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate tribunal has refused to absolve, a partnership firm, East North VVS Realty of its liability to refund ₹42 lakh to an 82-year-old homebuyer, holding that the firm could not escape its obligations following changes in its constitution.
“Viewed in this factual backdrop, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is an attempt to avoid the legitimate obligations of the Firm and thereby defeat the lawful rights of the Allottee,” the tribunal observed.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. delivered the ruling while modifying an order passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
Case Title : M/s Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Virupakshappa Irappa Bagewadi & Anr., connected with Virupakshappa Irappa Bagewadi v. Karnataka RERA & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 30/2026 connected with Appeal No. (K-REAT) 36/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 74
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an Occupancy Certificate (OC) is not a mere procedural formality and its date can be relevant in deciding when a project can be treated as lawfully completed.
“Therefore, the issuance of an occupancy certificate by the competent authority is not a mere procedural formality; rather, it is a statutory recognition that the building is permitted to be occupied in accordance with the applicable local laws and has the requisite civic infrastructure. Consequently, while determining the period of delay and the consequential liability of the promoter, the date and legal effect of the occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority assume significance. This version also leaves room to distinguish between lawful occupation pursuant to the OC,” the tribunal observed.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. made the observation while deciding a dispute over Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd.'s “Casa Grande Lorenza” project in Bengaluru.
Revised Plan Attached To Sale Deed Not Informed Consent For Commercial Development: Karnataka REAT
Case Title Amit Garg v. SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited & Another
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 64 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 81
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Karnataka REAT) has ruled that merely attaching a revised sanctioned plan to a sale deed does not amount to informed consent from homebuyers for commercial development within a residential project.
“Mere enclosing of copy of the Revised Plan to the Sale Deed cannot be taken as informed consent. Therefore, at the least the Promoter ought to have taken prior written consent of at least 2/3rd of the Allottees before venturing into commercial development in 'A' Schedule,” the tribunal held.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. partly allowed homebuyer Amit Garg's appeal against SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited. It directed the developer to obtain written consent from at least two-thirds of the homebuyers within 60 days before proceeding under the revised sanctioned plan.
Tamil Nadu REAT
Delayed Possession Does Not Restart Three-Year Limitation For RERA Compensation Claims: TN REAT
Case Title M/s. Five Mount Villa Owners Welfare Association v. M/s. Bahri Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number Appeal No. 108 of 2026 and M.A. No. 278 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 79
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu REAT) on 14 October held that compensation claims for breach of contractual obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, must be filed within three years under Article 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu dismissed an appeal filed by Five Mount Villa Owners Welfare Association against Bahri Estates Private Limited and Bahri Realty Management Services Private Limited, upholding the rejection of its compensation claims as time-barred. It held:
“The act of handing over possession is not a breach. The cause of action to file a complaint remains invariable and static on the date of breach as occurred on the date of completion as specified in the Agreement, irrespective of the subsequent performance of handing over of possession.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
Homebuyer Denied Flat And Rise In Property Value Can Claim Higher Compensation: Karnataka RERA
Case Title Nidhi Agarwal v. Casagrand Lotus Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 00877/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 154
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 7 October held that compensation to a homebuyer may be higher when cancellation of an allotment deprives the buyer of both possession of the apartment and appreciation in its market value.
Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath directed Bengaluru-based developer Casagrand Lotus Private Limited to pay Rs. 5 lakh to homebuyer Agarwal for mental agony, financial loss and loss of opportunity. The officer found that the developer had unilaterally cancelled her allotment and allotted the apartment to a third party despite receiving substantial consideration. She observed:
“Where possession is eventually delivered, compensation may ordinarily be lower since the allottee receives benefit of appreciation. However, where refund alone is directed, compensation may be higher as the allottee is deprived of both, possession and escalation in value.”
Haryana RERA
When Is An Offer Of Flat Possession Valid? Haryana RERA Lays Down Three Conditions
Case Title Mrs. Bindu Bhatia & Anr. v. M/s Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 3682 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 156
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Haryana RERA), Gurugram, has held that obtaining an Occupation Certificate does not make an offer of possession valid if the allotted unit is not ready for occupation.
The authority laid down three conditions for a valid offer: the developer must obtain an Occupation Certificate, the unit must be habitable, and the offer must not be accompanied by unreasonable additional demands.
Member Phool Singh Saini of Haryana RERA made the observation while directing Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited to pay delayed possession interest at 10.80% per annum to homebuyers Bindu Bhatia and Priya Chopra.
The authority found that the penthouse in the developer's Godrej Meridien-II project was not ready for possession despite the Occupation Certificate having been obtained.
“The Authority after detailed consideration of the matter has arrived at the conclusion that a valid offer of possession must have following components:
i. Possession must be offered after obtaining occupation certificate.
ii. The subject unit should be in habitable condition.
iii. Possession should not be accompanied by unreasonable additional demands.”
Punjab RERA
Developer Cannot Rely On Unregistered Offer Letter To Postpone Property Possession: Punjab RERA
Case Title Maj. Gen. Dr. Shamsher Singh Chauhan (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Raj Sandeep Chauhan & Others v. Suksha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others
Case Number Complaint No. GC No. 0455 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 152
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Punjab RERA) on 14 October held that a developer cannot rely on an unregistered offer letter to defer its possession obligations when it has failed to execute the mandatory Agreement for Sale under Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Arunvir Vashista of the Authority allowed a complaint filed by the legal representatives of deceased allottee Major General Dr. Shamsher Singh Chauhan against Suksha Developers Private Limited and others. He held:
“The respondents cannot rely upon an alleged possession date contained in a commercial understanding while simultaneously failing to execute the statutory Agreement for Sale required under Section 13. More importantly, the statutory obligation to execute the Agreement for Sale cannot be defeated by relying upon an unregistered or informal arrangement to postpone the promoter's obligation for an indefinite period.”
Punjab RERA Advises Homebuyers To Check Statutory Clearances Before Taking Possession
Case Title Urmila Arya v. Phenomenal Construction Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number GC No. 0358 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 155
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Punjab RERA) has advised homebuyers to take possession of plots or units after builders obtain all necessary clearances from the competent authority, including Occupation or Completion Certificates.
Member Binod Kumar Singh made the observation while dismissing a homebuyer's claim for delayed-possession interest against Phenomenal Construction Private Limited and Suraksha Enclave Ipan Real Estate Private Limited. The Authority found no delay in handing over possession, relying on a conveyance deed that recorded physical possession had been delivered before the contractual deadline.
The authority observed: “It is always advice able that possession of plot/unit should be taken when the builder has all clearance from competent authority including occupation certificate/completion certificate.”
Homebuyers Continuing Project Can Claim Delay Interest, Not Compensation: Punjab RERA
Case Title : Renu Choudhary & Anr. v. M/s Sushma Buildtech Ltd. & Others
Case Number : Complaint No. AdCNo.0083 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 146
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a homebuyer who chooses to continue with a delayed housing project cannot separately seek compensation for the delay under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The remedy in such a case is interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over, Adjudicating Officer R.S. Rai ruled while dismissing a complaint filed by Renu Choudhary and Amit Choudhary against Sushma Buildtech Limited.
The homebuyers had sought ₹5 lakh for mental agony and harassment arising from the delay. They also sought relief for loss of capital gains exemption, rental costs and interest expenses.
Rai observed, “Wording of this provision of the Act, makes it crystal clear that allottee/complainant can only seek compensation, if he/she withdraws from the project. Otherwise, if he/she does not intend to withdraw from the project, he/she shall be paid only interest for every month of delay, till handing over the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed and this remedy has already been availed by the complainants of the case in hand.”
Case Title Fortune Multitech Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajat Kumar & Rohtash Singh
Case Number GC No. 0236/2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 151
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently ruled that apartment owners cannot refuse to pay maintenance charges merely because they did not sign a separate maintenance agreement.
The obligation arises from the buyer's agreement and Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Allowing a complaint filed by Fortune Multitech Private Limited, the authority directed two apartment owners to pay ₹2,85,472 towards outstanding maintenance charges and interest for the Victoria Heights residential project in Mohali, Punjab.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed, “The liability to pay maintenance charges flows from the Buyers Agreement itself signed between the parties. Further, Section 19(6) of the RERD Act, 2016 also requires an allottee to make necessary payments, including maintenance charges. Merely, because a separate maintenance agreement was not executed does not mean that the respondents can avoid payment of maintenance charges.”
Punjab RERA Partly Allows Villa Buyer's Complaint, Says Unpaid Instalments Bar Possession
Case Title Vikas Gupta v. IREO Waterfront Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number Complaint GC No. 0570 of 2022
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 148
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 30 September held that a homebuyer who failed to pay instalments for a villa despite repeated reminders could not claim an enforceable right to possession, but remained entitled to a refund of the amount paid with interest.
Member Binod Kumar Singh partly allowed Vikas Gupta's complaint against IREO Waterfront Private Limited and AIPL Housing & Urban Infrastructure Limited and directed the latter to refund Rs.40 lakh with 10.80% annual interest from the respective dates on which the payments were received until the date of actual refund. He observed:
“Upon holistic consideration of the complaint, reply, rejoinder, documents placed on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Bench finds that the complainant has failed its obligation to make the payment as per Builder Buyer agreement even after repeatedly reminder before the due date of possession from the respondent.”
Telangana RERA
Case Title Sri Kambalipati Haribabu, Representing Sivom Social Welfare Association Members v. Isukapatla Sambamurthy & Others
Case Number Complaint No. 420/2025/TG RERA
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 153
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Telangana RERA) on 14 October ordered joint penalty proceedings against developer Sivom Projects Private Limited, its Managing Director, and a landowners' GPA holder for selling 40 residential plots in the 'Sivom Sahasra II' layout without prior registration under the RERA Act, 2016.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao held that the project required registration before any marketing or sale activity. The Authority observed:
“Section 3(1) of the Act places the obligation to obtain prior registration squarely upon the "promoter" before any marketing or sale activity is undertaken. Section 4(1) of the Act further mandates that it is the promoter's obligation to make an application for registration. Registration under the Act is a statutory approval it is a sanction of the highest order under the real estate regulatory framework, required before any sale, marketing, or booking in the project can take place.”
Telangana RERA Says Additional Floors Cannot Dilute Agreed UDS, Directs PBSR To Compensate Buyers
Case Title Cherukuri Hema & Anr. v. M/s. PBSR Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number Complaint No. 254 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 149
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 5 October held that a general clause permitting additional construction cannot allow a developer to reduce the specific undivided share of land promised to homebuyers.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao directed PBSR Developers Private Limited to compensate homebuyers of its 'Smondo Gachibowli' project for reducing their agreed undivided share of land. It observed:
“A general reference to the terms of the agreement cannot be read as a licence to deprive the purchaser of a quantified ownership right that forms the very subject matter of the conveyance.”
Maharashtra RERA
Maharashtra RERA Imposes ₹10 Lakh Penalty On Developers For Failing To Allot Flat
Case Title vMadhu Alvani & Anr. v. Sai Enterprises & Anr.
Case Number CC006000000079000/APPL/NC/3
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 150
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on Sai Enterprises and Super Construction for failing to comply with an earlier order directing them to allot a flat to two homebuyers.
Adjudicating Officer R.K. Malabade found that the developers had also failed to pay interest on ₹17.49 lakh received from the homebuyers. The authority directed recovery of the interest from June 24, 2012, along with ₹20,000 in complaint costs.
“However, there is non compliance in the directions of the final order passed by the Hon'ble Authority, committed by the respondents,” the adjudicating officer observed.