LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Monthly Digest: April 2026

Kerala High Court

RERA Orders Not Civil Decrees, Recoverable As Arrears Of Land Revenue: Kerala High Court

Case Title : Sanroyal Builders and Contractors Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Divya Balu

Case Number : MSA No. 121 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 67

The Kerala High Court has held that amounts awarded by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that such orders do not amount to “decrees” requiring execution through civil courts.

A Bench of Justice Easwaran S held that subordinate legislation cannot override the Act. Referring to the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction, the Court noted that matters falling within the domain of RERA authorities cannot be entertained by civil courts. It further emphasised that proceedings before RERA are complaint-based and not in the nature of civil suits.

Clarifying the nature of RERA orders, the Court said they do not meet the definition of a “decree” under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which arises from adjudication in a civil suit. “Admittedly, the proceedings before the R.E.R.A. are not in the nature of a suit rather on a complaint. Hence, the decision or order of R.E.R.A. or by the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal arising out of such proceedings would not be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC, 1908,” it said.

Madras High Court

RERA Can Probe Developers' Financial Affairs: Madras High Court Remands Aavisa Township Dispute To TNRERA

Case Title : Vandana Parvez v. IVR Hotels and Resorts Ltd & Ors. (batch matters)

Case Number : CMSA Nos. 35-41 of 2024 and connected matters

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 104

The Madras High Court has recently held that authorities under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 can examine the “affairs” of promoters (developers), including financial dealings, while dealing with complaints by homebuyers. It set aside orders of TNRERA and TNREAT and remanded the Aavisa Golf Township dispute for fresh consideration, including whether the Kotak Mahindra entities qualify as “promoters” under the Act.

A Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan said, “The Act, having been brought to alleviate the grievances of the homebuyers, has conferred extensive powers the RERA. The authority has the power to initiate an inquiry into the affairs of any promoter or allottee or agent. While conducting this inquiry, it has the same powers as that of a civil court, while trying a suit. This power can be exercised either suo moto or on a complaint. The authority is also empowered, at any time, to call upon any promoter, allottee, or real estate agent to furnish such information or explanation relating to its affairs, as the authority may require. In our view, the word “affairs” is expansive enough to include inquiry into financial investigations too."

Chhattisgarh High Court

Limitation Act Not Applicable To Homebuyer Complaints Before RERA: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title : Nidhi Sao v. Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited

Case Number : MA No. 173 of 2023

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 10

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has recently held that complaints filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) or its Adjudicating Officer are not subject to the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Setting aside a tribunal's suo motu order that had dismissed a homebuyer, Nidhi Sao's complaint as time-barred, the court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on its merits. The tribunal had proceeded on the basis of the respondent developer's contention that the complaint, filed on September 4, 2018, was beyond three years from the alleged cause of action arising around May 25, 2015.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “In the case at hand, the appellant filed a complaint before the RERA under Section 31 (1) of the Act, 2016 which is a creature under the special Act wherein there is no provision of limitation and even there is no express provision or implication of applicability of the Limitation Act. Thus, the Tribunal committed gross error by applying the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 31(1) of the Act before the RERA"

Bombay High Court

Homebuyer Labelled As 'Investor' To Undermine Rights: Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer Appeal

Case Title : M/s Sai Enterprises v. Sangeeta Ravi Punjabi & Ors.

Case Number : Second Appeal No. 153 of 2026

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 232

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a developer's second appeal, holding that it could not justify cancelling a flat allotment and pushing the homebuyer toward a refund by treating her as an "investor" instead of honoring the allotment. The court found that, in this case, calling the buyer an “investor” was not an innocent choice of words. She had already paid 30% of the price for a clearly identified flat. Describing her as an investor was a way to deny her the apartment and steer her toward a refund.

“From a perusal of the Development Agreement dated October 17, 2017, it also becomes abundantly clear that Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant intended to run roughshod over the rights of the Allottees by terming them as investors. True, in the ultimate analysis, the nomenclature is of no consequence. However, the repeated reference to the Allottees, from whom the first developer had accepted valuable consideration many years ago, and had also issued the allotment letter with particulars of the apartment and the dimensions thereof, as 'investors' betrayed a devious design to trample upon the rights of the Allottees,” the court said.

Allottee 'Very Vulnerable', Can Withdraw Deposited Funds Despite Pre-Deposit Requirement: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Rare Townships Private Limited v. Mitul Gada

Case Number : Second Appeal No. 121 of 2026 with Second Appeal No. 122 of 2026

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 173

On 30 March, the Bombay High Court held that an allottee can withdraw amounts deposited by a developer during an appeal despite the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed Rare Township's (developer) appeals and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order allowing allottee Mitul Gada to withdraw Rs. 3,26,37,193 deposited by the developer.

The Court observed: “The release of the amount ameliorates the situation of the allottee by relieving him of the financial constraints and also the mental anguish caused by the breach of obligations by the promoter for over a decade. The promoter and allottee cannot be placed on an equal footing. The capacity to withstand the deprivation of the legitimate amount vastly differs and the position of the allottee is generally very vulnerable.”

Buyers Need Not Form Separate Societies For Each Tower In Multi-Phase Project: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Gera Developers Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2026

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 184

The Bombay High Court on 1 April held that while each tower in a real estate development may qualify as a separate “project” under the statutory framework, flat purchasers are not mandatorily required to form separate co-operative housing societies for each tower. Justice Amit Borkar upheld the formation of a single unified co-operative housing society by flat purchasers despite the project being multi-phased and governed under different statutory regimes, after noting that the developer had failed to act within the timeline window of three months under Rule 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 and four months under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 to register the society. The Court observed:

“The scheme of Rule 9 of the Rules and Section 10 of the Act does not leave any discretion with the developer to act as per its convenience".

Telangana High Court

Exclusion Of EWS/LIG Allottees From Housing Society Violates Articles 14, 21 Of The Constitution: Telangana High Court

Case Title : Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Ltd v. B. Srinivas Rao & Ors.

Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2026

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 10

The Telangana High Court has held that a housing society that excludes economically weaker sections (EWS) and lower-income group (LIG) allottees is unsustainable in law. It observed that excluding such allottees from access to common facilities is violative of the principle of equality under Article 14 and undermines their right to dignified living under Article 21.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed, “the exclusion of LIG/EWS allottees from access to common facilities and participation in the association is violative of the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and undermines their right to dignified living under Article 21"

Real Estate Appellate Tribunals (REAT)

Maharashtra REAT

Maharashtra REAT Says No Jurisdiction Over Banks Lending To Homebuyers; Refuses Stay On SARFAESI Recovery

Case Title : Kamlesh Valji Balsara & Anr. v. M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure and Realty & Ors. (and connected matters)

Case Number : Appeal No. AT06/01035/2025 and connected appeals

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 26

Holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear complaints by allottees against lending banks, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) refused to stay recovery proceedings initiated against homebuyers, while restraining the promoter from creating third-party rights in the flats. The tribunal clarified that RERA authorities can examine claims against banks in cases such as where loans are extended to a promoter and, upon default, the lender steps into the shoes of the promoter.

In the present case, however, the loans were extended directly to individual homebuyers, and therefore the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain claims against the lending bank. The Bench comprising Chairperson S. S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed, “we are of the view that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any complaint by allottees against the lending bank, who has lent loan to the allottees, and pass any order against the bank, who has initiated action under the SARFAESI Act against the allottees"

Homebuyers Can't Enforce Rights Against New Developer After Termination of Erstwhile Builder's Contract: MahaREAT

Case Title: Janak Laxmichand Bhavsar & Ors. v. M/s. Aditya Developers & Ors.

Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006000000345507 & connected appeals of 2024

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 28

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that homebuyers who executed agreements for sale with an erstwhile developer cannot enforce their claims for possession, interest, or other entitlements arising from those agreements against the society or a new developer due to the absence of privity of contract.

Dismissing the appeals, the tribunal upheld the order dated August 26, 2024 passed by MahaRERA, rejecting the homebuyers' claims for possession, interest, and cancellation of the new project registration.

A Coram of Chairperson S. S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that "In the above circumstances, the issue of whether the allottees who have executed and registered the agreements for sale with the erstwhile promoter can enforce their agreements for sale or any entitlements against the society or its property or the new promoter appointed by the society as well as whether the society can be termed as promoter within section 2 (zk) of the RERA Act, 20L6 have been answered by the series of judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court."

RERA Overrides Contract Act, Homebuyers Can Claim Interest for Delay Despite Continued Payments: Maharashtra REAT

Case Title : CCI Projects Private Limited v. Ramesh Shivsaran Singh & Ors. (and connected appeals)

Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006-53079 to 53179 of 2021

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 27

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that homebuyers can claim interest for delayed possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 even if they continued making payments after the promised possession date.

A bench of Judicial Member Shriram R. Jagtap and Administrative Member Rajgopal Devara rejected the developer's reliance on Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to argue waiver of claims.

The tribunal said, “The substantive provisions of Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA Act, 2016 would prevail to provide interest and/or compensation on account of delay, rendering Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act ineffective. Right conferred under Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016 to allottees is indefeasible. Section 18 of RERA Act itself is a notice to the promoter about the claim of allottees and therefore, merely because allottees have made payments to promoter towards consideration value even after unilateral change of dates of possession by the promoter that does not mean that allottees have waived their right to claim interest. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no waiver and allottees are well within their right to claim interest for delay in possession in terms of Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA Act, 2016.”

Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal Rejects Expat Vida Homebuyers' Notional Claims, Says Proof Of Loss Needed

Case Title : Jessica Arun Naidu & Ors. v. M/s Expat Projects and Development Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number : Appeal Nos. G-20, G-21, G-22, G-23 of 2022

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 24

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has recently held that compensation cannot be awarded to homebuyers in the absence of proof of actual loss, ruling that notional claims such as loss of property appreciation, time value of money, missed investment opportunities, EMI burden, inflation, and increased cost of living are insufficient to determine compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Holding that the appellants had failed to establish any actual loss, the Tribunal observed that “compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of notional losses” and requires clear evidence of damages arising from delay in handing over possession. A Bench of Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, however, partly allowed the appeals by modifying the refund order passed by the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority in favour of homebuyers who had booked flats in the “Expat Vida Phase-II” project developed by Expat Projects and Development Private Limited.

Odisha REAT

Only Promoter, Allottee Or Agent Can Be Made Party Under RERA: Odisha REAT Removes Site In-Charge From Complaint

Case Title : Soumya Ranjan Jena v. Priyata Lipsa & Ors.

Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 116 of 2023

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 25

The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) has held that under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, only statutorily recognised parties such as promoters, allottees, or real estate agents can be made respondents in a complaint, setting aside an order rejecting a site in-charge's plea for deletion from a flat dispute.

A coram of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das observed: “It is also notable that, as per section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, an aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. This means the respondent of a complaint u/sec. 31 of the Act must belong to either of these three categories. In the instant case, there is no material to hold the appellant as a representative of the promoter-company, or an allottee or a real estate agent in respect of the project “Basera Aangan”. The alleged incidents in the complaint even if are true do not place the appellant in the status of representative of the respondent no.2-promoter company"

Odisha REAT Issues Document Checklist For Authorities To Determine Promoter Status Under RERA

Case Title : Shri T. Kiran Kumar v. The Secretary, ORERA

Case Number : OREAT Appeal No.21 of 2024 (Arising out of SMCC No.163 of 2021)

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 21

The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has set aside a 10 lakh penalty imposed on T. Kiran Kumar, holding that a person cannot be treated as a “promoter” under the real estate law without documentary evidence and directing the Authority to rely on specific records before fixing liability. A bench of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das held that liability cannot rest solely on inspection reports.

Referring to the absence of ownership records, development agreements, statutory permissions, and transaction or marketing documents linking Kumar to the project, the tribunal observed, “So in absence of the above mentioned materials it cannot be concluded only on the basis of the inspection report dtd. 15.7.2022 of the Enforcement Officer of the ORERA that Sri T.Kiran Kumar has developed a plotted project in the name 'SSR Layout' at Ginjriguda without registering it with the ORERA”.

Odisha REAT Holds Builders Cannot Retain Maintenance Funds Without Audited Accounts

Case Title : NBCC (India) Ltd. v. NBCC Imperia Residents' Welfare Association (NIRWA) & Anr.

Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 124 of 2023

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 23

The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that a builder cannot withhold residents' funds unilaterally without maintaining transparent accounts supported by authenticated records or audited statements to justify utilisation of maintenance funds. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das directed NBCC (India) Ltd. to refund the Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) amount of Rs. 2,32,54,200 to the NBCC Imperia Residents' Welfare Association (NIRWA). It observed:

“The appellant-promoter having failed to produce proper accounts of the collected maintenance charges and expenditures there from together with supporting documents, his claim that the maintenance account had been exhausted and therefore the excess expenditure of Rs.35,14,094.76 towards maintenance had to be made from a total deposit of Rs.2,32,54,200/- in the corpus fund account and accordingly he is liable to refund only a corpus fund deposit of Rs.1,96,38,904.34 to the respondent not.1-association, is not acceptable.”

Karnataka REAT

Builder Cannot Escape Refund Liability For Failing To Deliver Flat With Clear Title By Blaming Landowner: REAT

Case Title : Sobha Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.

Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT)-52 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 22

The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that a builder (promoter) cannot escape liability to refund amounts paid by homebuyers with interest for failing to deliver a flat with a clear and marketable title by blaming the landowner or citing pending title disputes. A bench of Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N and Administrative Member Mahendra Jain said, “The Promoter cannot absolve himself from the responsibility of paying delay compensation to the Allottee solely on the ground that the landowner is liable to pay the compensation arising due to title issues under the framework of RERA Act.”

It further held, “It is the responsibility of the Promoter to ensure that he has legal title to the land along with legally valid documents with authentication of such title, if such land is owned by another person, namely the landlord who may be different from the Promoter. It is also his responsibility to ensure that land is free from all encumbrances including any rights, title, interest or name of any party in or over such land along with details.”

Real Estate Regulatory Authorities

Tamil Nadu RERA

Developer Liable To Fix Non-Structural Defects Reported Within Five Years: TN RERA

Case Title Tarun Chatterjee v. M/s Sai UVR Properties Ltd.

Case Number Complaint No. 003 of 2025

Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 74

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a developer remains liable to rectify defects arising from poor workmanship, including non-structural cracks and seepage, where such defects are brought to its notice within five years from the date of handing over possession.

“As per Section 11(4)(a) of the RERA Act, the Respondent Promoter is responsible for all obligations and functions under the provision of the Act. Further, as per Section 14(3) of the RERA Act, any structural or any other defects in workmanship, quality or provision of services is brought to the notice of the Respondent within period of five years from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the Respondent Promoter to rectify such defects without further charges within thirty days.", the authority observed.

A coram comprising Chairperson Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Sukumar Chittibabu passed the order on April 10, 2026.

Punjab RERA

Homebuyers In Possession Must Pay Maintenance Charges Even Without Completion Certificate: RERA Punjab

Case Title : Arvind Nagar Residential Welfare Society v. Pawan Goods Merchants Co. Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. 0242/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 73

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 15 April held that homebuyers in possession of their units and enjoying project amenities cannot evade maintenance charges on the ground that the developer has not obtained a completion or occupancy certificate. Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal, directed the Arvind Nagar Residential Welfare Society to take over maintenance of the colony in Bathinda, holding that Sections 11(4)(d) and 17 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 impose a clear obligation on the association to assume control of common areas, manage essential services, and collect maintenance charges once occupation begins. He observed:

“In the present case, the allottees are staying and are enjoying the amenities and premises have been constructed. The providing of electricity and water supply, free of cost, cannot be extended for an indefinite time though, the project is registered under the RERD Act, 2016 and legally not completed in view of non-availability of occupation/ completion certificate as the case may be. There is a long delay in obtaining the occupation or completion certificate, but this does not give a guarantee and a license to the residents to stay without paying maintenance charges after taking over possession of plots and thereafter constructing houses over it.”

Haryana RERA

Haryana RERA Dismisses Plea Against Ansal Housing, Says Allottee Who Stays Entitled Only To Delay Interest

Case Title : Jagdish Chauhan vs. Ansal Housing Limited

Case Number : 6044 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 65

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) recently dismissed a complaint against Ansal Housing Limited, holding that an allottee who chooses to continue in a project and has already been granted delayed possession compensation cannot seek additional compensation for the same period of delay. Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held, “When complainant has already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession. Complaint in hands is thus dismissed. ”

Haryana RERA Allows Registration Of Riviera At AIPL Lake City Project In Gurugram Despite Land Dispute

Case Title : Glorii Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s AIPL Bharat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 70

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently cleared the way for registration of the project “The Riviera at AIPL Lake City” in Gurugram, even as a land dispute linked to part of the project remains pending. The Authority said the mere existence of litigation is not enough to deny registration, as long as safeguards are in place to protect buyers. In an order dated March 30, 2026, HARERA revisited the matter after the Appellate Tribunal sent it back for a fresh decision. Following a fresh round of consideration, it allowed the project to go ahead, subject to conditions.

At the same time, it directed the promoter to freeze the portion of the project linked to the disputed land and not sell or market units in that part. The Authority, comprising Chairperson Arun Kumar and Member P.S. Saini, said that buyers must be fully informed about the dispute. It ordered, “The promoter shall make full, complete, and prominent disclosure of the litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 21373 of 2025, or any other proceedings affecting rights in the project land, in all brochures, advertisements, marketing or promotional materials, and on the promoter's website with respect to the project. The promoter shall also ensure that the said disclosure forms an integral part of every agreement for sale executed with allottees.”

Haryana RERA Orders Signature Infrabuild To Pay Interest For Delay In Affordable Housing Project

Case Title : Avtar Singh Guleria Versus Signature Infrabuild Private Limited

Case Number : Complaint no. 897 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 62

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently directed Signature Infrabuild to pay interest to a homebuyer for delay in handing over possession of a flat in its Gurugram project, holding that the developer failed to meet the stipulated timeline and had not obtained the Occupation Certificate. A bench comprising Member Phool Singh Saini observed that the delay in offering possession amounted to a failure on the part of the promoter to fulfill its obligations.

“The Authority is of the considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondent in offering possession of the subject unit and it is a failure on the part of the promoter to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities to hand over possession within the stipulated period,” the order said.

Haryana RERA Dismisses Compensation Plea, Says Allottee Continuing In Delayed Project Entitled Only To Interest

Case Title : Col. Kanwar Ripu Sain Jaswal & Anr. v. M/s EMAAR India Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. 281 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 59

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has recently refused to grant additional compensation to homebuyers who chose to remain in a delayed project, holding that once delayed possession interest has been awarded, no separate compensation can be claimed for the same delay. “When the complainants have already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession. Complaint in hands is thus dismissed. ,” Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar said while dismissing the complaint on February 10.

Karnataka RERA

Karnataka RERA Orders Casa Grande To Pay Interest For Delay Over Changing Clubhouse Without Homebuyers' Consent

Case Title : Arpan Sarkar & Anr. v. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. 00754/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 61

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has recently held that Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd. made an attempt to change the location of a promised clubhouse without the consent of homebuyers and was liable for delay in handing over possession, directing it to pay interest to Arpan Sarkar and Priya Sarkar. Chairman Rakesh Singh observed, “The Respondent in this case has made an attempt to change the location of the clubhouse without the consent of allottees. There are dispute as to the location of the clubhouse. The BBMP plan indicates that the clubhouse is in the south east corner of the project. However, the proposed clubhouse site is allegedly situated on BDA land that was encroached upon by the builder or land owner. It is also reported in the spot inspection dated 08.08.2025.”

OC Application Date, Not Issuance, Decides RERA Applicability: Karnataka RERA Dismisses Plea Against Pre-RERA Project

Case Title : Promont Residents Welfare Association v. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. & Anr

Case Number : Complaint No. 00972/2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 60

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dismissed a complaint by the Promont Residents Welfare Association against Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. and The Promont Hilltop Private Limited, holding that it did not have jurisdiction as the project did not fall within the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. A Bench of Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy recorded that the developers had applied for partial occupancy certificates on May 19, 2016 and June 20, 2017 before the enactment of RERA. It held that the applicability of RERA depends on the date of such application, not on when the certificate is issued.

“So, upon completion of the tower 1 and 2, the respondents have applied occupancy certificate prior to enactment of RERA. Irrespective of when the occupancy certificate was issued, the eligibility for obtaining occupancy certificate has to be reckoned from the date of application itself. From that point of view, the provision of RERA doesn't attract to the case on hand. Therefore, even though the occupancy certificate was issued subsequent to enactment of RERA, the case falls within the exemption provided under the Act. Hence, the present complaint would not be maintainable in any stretch of imagination before the Authority,” the bench said.

Validity Of Homebuyers' Co-Operative Society To Act As Residents' Association To Be Decided Under KCS Act: Karnataka RERA

Case Title : Bitragunta Venkata Kalyana Chakravarthy and Others vs. Sobha Limited

Case Number : Complaint No. 01708/2023

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 69

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that it cannot adjudicate disputes over the validity of a co-operative society formed by homebuyers, clarifying that such issues fall within the jurisdiction of authorities under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The co-operative society formed by some homebuyers of a Shobha HRC Project was intended to function as the residents' association, taking over management of the project and receiving transfer of common areas, funds, and records from the developer.

“This Authority, being a regulatory authority under the RERA Act, cannot adjudicate inter se disputes relating to validity or legality of registration of a society under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which falls within the domain of the competent authority under the said Act. Where promoter has already complied with KAOA mechanism, prima facie compliance of Section 11(4)(e}) is established," the authority observed.

Karnataka RERA Slaps Up To 5% Penalty Of Project Cost On Mantri Developers For Non-Compliance With Refund Order

Case Title : Gourav Gupta & Anr. vs Mantri Developers Private Limited

Case Number : Complaint No. 01047/2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 66

Holding that there was “clear and continued non-compliance” with its binding directions, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) recently imposed a penalty of up to 5% of the estimated project cost on Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. for failing to comply with its earlier order in favour of homebuyers. A coram comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy further directed the Managing Director and concerned Directors of the company to appear before it and show cause within 30 days as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them for continued non-compliance.

“It is, therefore, crystal clear that the persons who are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Respondent-company do not attach any value to the letter and spirit of the law. ,” the authority observed.

Karnataka RERA Orders Casagrand To Compensate Buyer For Premature Demands Without Proof Of Construction

Case Title: Mohammed Iqbal Khan v. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt Ltd

Case Number : Complaint No. 01440/2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 75

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has held that a developer cannot raise construction-linked payment demands without substantiating the stage-wise progress with architect or engineer certificates, faulting Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt Ltd for issuing premature demand letters without any such proof.

Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath found that the developer had failed to produce “a single iota of evidence” to show that the payment demands were backed by certified construction progress, making it “difficult to know the exact stage wise progress of the project.”

Karnataka RERA Orders Surya Homes, Bagpack Suites To Pay ₹12 Lakh Annual Rent Loss To Homebuyer

Case Title : Subhash Dekhne v. Surya Homes & Ors.

Case Number : Complaint No. 00014/2023

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 72

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has recently directed Surya Homes and its hospitality partner Bagpack Suites Bangalore Private Limited to pay Rs 12 lakh per annum towards loss of rent and Rs 2 lakh towards mental agony to homebuyer Subhash Dhekne for failing to hand over physical possession of a flat despite executing the sale deed. The Authority held that mere execution of a sale deed does not complete a promoter's obligations in the absence of actual handover of possession, observing that compensation can only partially address the distress suffered by a homebuyer.

Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath observed, “It is also to be noted that mental agony being intangible aspect no one other than the aggrieved can put it in words of mouth and no quantum of money could be said to be sufficient to heal the injury caused to the mind. At the most it could be akin to applying a cooling balm on the burns. Therefore, it is quite necessary for this forum to step into the shoes of the aggrieved as practicable as possible to determine the amount of compensation that could be proportionate to the mental agony and financial loss undergone by the complainant. That might have compelled him to spend many sleepless nights. The struggle they had made to mobilize funds for legal battle to recover the money they had invested with such great hope.”

'Delays Shatter Homebuyers' Dreams': Karnataka RERA Orders BDA To Pay ₹56 Lakh For Delay In Providing Amenities

Case Title : Mridula Krishnapur v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case Number : Complaint No.01380/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 68

Warning that delays by developers can shatter homebuyers' lifelong investment-backed aspirations, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to pay Rs 56.03 lakh as interest compensation to a homebuyer for delay in providing basic amenities in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout (NPKL) project in Bengaluru.

Holding that mere execution of a sale deed or handing over possession without basic infrastructure does not amount to a valid handover, a coram of Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy observed, “To have a cosy house is everyone's dream. To fulfil that dream, one could take the risk of investing all lifetime savings and raising loans in terms of lakhs or crores, which could take the rest of life to repay. That being so, (if) the developer resorts to using the hard-earned money of investors in a reckless manner, it would not only shatter the dreams of investors, but also make them run from pillar to post by incurring heavy investment as well as legal expenses. Though the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration of the site to the respondent in the year 2020 itself, she is deprived of use and enjoyment of her site."

Rajasthan RERA

Resort Villas Sold By Keemaya Resorts Under Leaseback Model Must Be Registered; Buyers Are Allottees: Rajasthan RERA

Case Title : Anuj Singh v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP & Sapna Singh (Deceased) through Legal Heirs v. Keemaya Resorts and SPAs LLP

Case Number : RAJ-RERA-C-N-2024-7720 & RAJ-RERA-C-N-2024-7731

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 71

Holding that resort villas sold by Keemaya Resorts under a Perpetual Lease Aggregation Agreement (sale-and-leaseback model) are part of a “real estate project” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ruled that such projects must be registered and that buyers qualify as “allottees.”

A coram of Member Sudhir Kumar Sharma observed, “All these documents whether it is brochure of the project or sale deed and PLAA executed in favour of another person 'X', clearly proves that the project was envisaged as Real Estate Project, the Respondent is a Promoter, who sold or booked the Villas for purpose of selling and then taking back management to Resort Management Company through lease,. Every persons who booked the Villa is / was an allottee.”

Himachal Pradesh RERA

Promoter Cannot Escape Post-Possession Obligations: Himachal Pradesh RERA

Case Title : Romit Barnyal v. Vipul Mittal & M/s Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. HPRERA2025005/C

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 64

The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a promoter's obligations under Sections 11 and 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the Act) are continuous and non-delegable, requiring strict compliance with sanctioned plans and provision of all essential services even after handing over possession. The Authority comprising Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta allowed the complaint filed in relation to the “New Town Baddi” project and found that Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. had committed deficiency and violated statutory obligations. It held:

“The promoter is legally bound to ensure that the project is completed in all respects, with all essential infrastructure and services made available, before transferring responsibility to the association of allottees or any other entity. In view of the above, this Authority is of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully established deficiency and non-compliance on the part of the promoter and is, therefore, entitled to appropriate reliefs.”

Telangana RERA

Telangana RERA Orders Suo Moto Probe Against Sohini Builders Over Inclusion Of Private Plots In Registered Project

Case Title : M. Srinivasa Rao vs. M/s Sohini Builders LLP & Another

Case Number : Complaint No. 280 of 2024/TG RERA and connected matter

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 67

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on April 6, 2026 ordered suo motu proceedings against Sohini Builders LLP over allegations that it included privately owned plots in a registered project without consent, even as it dismissed complaints filed by two plot owners as not maintainable. At the heart of the ruling was the nature of the relationship. The Authority found that the complainants were not “allottees” under the Act and had no direct transactional link with the promoter, which is essential to invoke the complaint mechanism.

The Authority clarified that dismissal of the complaints would not affect its regulatory powers, stating: “However, this conclusion does not denude the Authority of its regulatory jurisdiction. The material placed on record and the nature of allegations brought forth by the Complainants disclose issues of potential non-compliance with the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and the TG RE(R&D) Rules,2017 framed thereunder, which warrant independent examination in the larger public interest and in furtherance of the objectives of the RE(R&D) Act.”