LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Monthly Digest: July 2026
Shivani PS
3 Aug 2026 12:27 PM IST
High Courts
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Navaratan Jhunjhunwala & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
Case Number: RERA Appeal No. 76 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 119
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing a Bengaluru-based real estate developer and its promoter to refund about ₹1.77 lakh with interest to homebuyers.
It found that the project, which remained unregistered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, could not claim exemption from registration without demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements.
A division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed:
“It is the mandate of Section 3 of the RERA Act that the registration of ongoing projects has to be made by the promoters within the period specified under the RERA Act. This has, admittedly, not been done by the promoters in the instant matter. Moreover, the exemption from registration could have been claimed by the promoters, where it had received completion certificate for a real estate project prior to commencement of the RERA Act as is the mandate of Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the RERA Act. This too, has not been demonstrated.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1040 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 394
The Bombay High Court on 10 July initiated contempt proceedings against the Collector of Mumbai and Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar after finding prima facie non-compliance with its directions on execution of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) recovery warrants.
A Division Bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata issued show-cause notices under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, holding that the Collector failed to comply with the direction to file a personal affidavit and that the Tahsildar improperly assumed the Collector's role by filing the affidavit. It observed:
“This Court has not authorised or permitted Mr. Dilip Rayannavar to file his Affidavit in this Petition. It was the Collector of Mumbai who was directed to file Affidavit. It is thus apparent that, Mr. Dilip Rayannavar has usurped the powers of Collector of Mumbai. By filing such Affidavit, he has undermined the Authority of this Court. Consequently, he has not only interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings, but has also intentionally interfered and obstructed the administration of justice.”
Case Title : Ibrahim Babubhai Chokiya & Ors. v. M/s Westinrely Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal From Order (ST.) No. 27813 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 377
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that original members of a housing society who sought additional area in a redevelopment project on payment did not become "allottees" under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) merely because they soufght excess area.
It restored a civil suit filed by members of a Goregaon housing society after holding that the grievances raised in the plaint, including allegations of fraudulent allotment, suppression of sanctioned plans and misrepresentation, were not disputes that RERA authorities are empowered to adjudicate.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the plaint did not disclose a promoter-allottee relationship and that it sought civil remedies which RERA authorities cannot grant.
"There is no sale of free sale component of shop premises by the Defendant No. 2 in order to establish a promoter-allottee relationship. It is also difficult to accept that only in respect of the excess area, the Plaintiffs can be construed as allottees within the meaning of Section 2(d) of RERA Act.", the court ruled.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
RERA Cannot Treat Temple Deity and Registered Trust As Separate Entities: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Shankar Ji Maharaj Trust
Case Number : Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 35 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 51
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an order directing registration of a residential-cum-commercial project proposed by Shankar Ji Maharaj Trust after ruling that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) could not reject the application by treating the temple deity and the registered public trust managing the temple's affairs as separate entities.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal upheld the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order directing registration of the trust's 'Shree Shankar Ji Niwas' project at Patan in the Jabalpur district.
"The distinction drawn by the Authority between the Temple (deity) and the Trust is legally unsustainable. A temple deity, being a juristic person, remains a minor in the eyes of law and must act through a lawful management agency. A duly registered Public Trust is the legally recognized face of the deity. The revenue records showing the Temple's name are inherently represented by the registered Trust. Therefore, the Authority committed a grave jurisdictional error by overriding the Registrar's final orders," the court held.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Karnataka REAT
Mental Agony Compensation Under RERA Must Be Based On Actual Hardship: Karnataka REAT
Case Title : M/s. Adarsh Nivaas Private Limited v. Anil Kumar Kurra & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 120/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 43
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) on 8 July held that compensation for mental agony under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be awarded mechanically and must depend on factors such as the period of delay, financial burden on the allottee, promoter's conduct and the actual hardship suffered.
Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N partly allowed Adarsh Nivaas Private Limited's appeal and reduced the compensation for rental loss from Rs. 11.87 lakh to Rs. 7.84 lakh and compensation for mental agony from Rs. 4 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh, while upholding the homebuyer's entitlement to compensation for delayed possession. The Bench observed:
“The determination must necessarily depend upon the facts of each case, including the period of delay, whether the allottee was compelled to bear the dual burden of payment of rent and EMIs, the conduct of the promoter, whether repeated assurances were held out and breached, the age and personal circumstances of the Allottee and the nature and extent of the inconvenience, hardship and mental distress actually suffered.”
Tamil Nadu REAT
Tamil Nadu REAT Upholds Refusal To Remove Sobha VP From RERA Complaint At Preliminary Stage
Case Title : Sabarinath K.N. v. Sobha Westhill Owners Association & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. 41 of 2026 with M.A. No. 109 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 46
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's decision refusing to remove Sobha Limited Vice President Sabarinath K.N. from a complaint filed by the Sobha Westhill Owners Association over the Sobha Westhill residential project.
A tribunal comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Members K. Babu and Selvi Apoorva, I.A.S. (Retd.), dismissed Sabarinath K.N.'s appeal. It held that the issue of his liability cannot be decided at the preliminary stage where the pleadings contain specific allegations regarding his role.
The tribunal observed, "When the 1st respondent had specifically stated in the counter that the appellant and the other respondents have violated the provisions of Section 11(3) and 12 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by not providing the approved plans and layout plans with specifications to the members of the 1st respondent Association and also the terms of Construction Agreement and that the respondents constructed the common amenities meant for the exclusive usage of the allottees in the lands gifted to the Corporation of Coimbatore. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there were no specific pleadings against the appellant in the complaint and hence the name of the appellant should be struck off from the complaint, cannot be accepted."
Haryana REAT
Adjudicating Officer Cannot Hear Complaints Seeking Project Development Reliefs: Haryana REAT
Case Title : St. Patricks Realty Private Limited v. Neha Prasad & Ors. And Connected Appeals.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 08, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 42
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an Adjudicating Officer under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot entertain complaints seeking directions for development works such as the construction of a boundary wall or roads along with compensation claims.
It ruled that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority.
The tribunal observed, "The Adjudicating Officer is vested with limited jurisdiction, primarily to adjudicate compensation under specific provisions of the Act. Therefore, such reliefs could not have been directly considered by the Adjudicating Officer."
A bench of Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan allowed appeals filed by St. Patricks Realty Private Limited against orders of the Adjudicating Officer.
The tribunal further observed, "The objection raised by the appellant-promoter regarding maintainability goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer. Such an issue ought to be decided at the threshold before proceeding further in the matter.
Limitation Act Doesn't Apply To RERA Complaints: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Emaar India Limited v. Poonam Goel & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : Appeal No. 946 of 2024 and connected appeals
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 41
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) has recently held that complaints filed before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot be dismissed as time-barred merely because they were filed after possession was handed over.
It ruled that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not prescribe any limitation period for such complaints. The tribunal also held that homebuyers do not lose their right to seek compensation for delayed possession after executing conveyance deeds.
The tribunal, comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan, dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Emaar India Ltd. and Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd.
It upheld orders directing the developers to pay delay compensation to homebuyers in the Gurgaon Greens and Orchard Avenue projects.
"The Act neither incorporates nor makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation Act to complaints instituted before the Authority. In the absence of any express legislative mandate, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat a remedy created under a legislation enacted for protection of allottees and regulation of the real estate sector," the tribunal ruled.
Telangana REAT
Case Title : M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited v. Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : T.A. No. 8 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 49
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a homebuyer who voluntarily cancels a flat booking does not lose the status of an allottee merely because a cancellation deed has been executed.
It held that the allottee continues to retain that status until the developer refunds the entire agreed-upon amount.
A bench of Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar upheld the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority's direction requiring Aliens Developers Private Limited to refund the remaining ₹2 lakh to homebuyer Bakki Sneha.
The tribunal later disposed of the appeal after noting that the refund had been made and rejecting the developer's objections.
"The cancellation of allotment becomes final only when the entire refund amount is remitted back to the complainant as agreed. Since the cancellation has not attained its finality, the 2nd respondent/complainant continues to be recognized as an allottee, rendering the appellant's contention that the 2nd respondent/complainant has ceased to be an allottee untenable.", the tribunal ruled.
Rajasthan REAT
RERA Doesn't Give Homebuyers Right To Insist On Preferred Flat Or Block: Rajasthan REAT
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. 26/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 47
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not confer any statutory right upon an allottee to insist on allotment of a preferred apartment, block or location. It held that such entitlement depends on the contractual terms agreed between the parties.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhishthir Sharma dismissed an appeal filed by Rail Vihar Phase-III homebuyer Rakesh Kumar Sharma against the Union of India and the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO).
It observed:
"It is clear from the above text that no request for allotment of any specific dwelling unit or a floor shall be entertained and allotment of dwelling units shall be made by computerized draw of lots; meaning thereby, the particular unit in a particular block cannot be claimed by any allottee as a right. It is noted that the RERA Act, 2016 not mandated about any choice of Apartment or Unit. It will depend on agreed terms & conditions between the parties."
Case Title : Air Force Naval Housing Board v. Sukhveer Singh Shekhawat (and connected matters)
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 197/2025, 201/2025, 62/2026, and 65/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 48
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently refused to allow the Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) to pay homebuyers delay interest at 3% instead of the statutory rate, reiterating that, as a registered promoter under RERA, it cannot deviate from the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhishthir Sharma dismissed four cross-appeals filed by AFNHB and two allottees.
It upheld the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order directing AFNHB to pay delay interest at 10.90% per annum. It also rejected its plea to exclude a 22-month delay caused by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) stop-work notices.
Relying on its earlier decision in Air Force Naval Housing Board v. Arpita Jain Garg, the Tribunal observed:
"As per finding of Question No.3 in earlier decided Appeal No.139/2024 on 25/10/2024, the appellant-AFNHB is also not competent to deviate from the provisions of the RERA Rules, 2017. Resultantly, alternative prayer regarding award of 3% delay interest is also not acceptable."
Odisha REAT
Case Title : M/s ODI-Tech Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Oditech Pride Buyers Association & Ors
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 60 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 50
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) has upheld an Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) order directing ODI-Tech Properties Pvt. Ltd. to maintain the common areas of its 'Oditech Pride' housing project without collecting maintenance charges from homebuyers.
It held that the developer must continue to do so until management is handed over to the Oditech Pride Buyers Association.
"The learned ORERA's direction to the appellant to maintain the common areas without collecting maintenance charges from the allottees is justified as the delay in handing over of the maintenance of the common areas to the respondent no.1-association is due to the inability of the appellant to obtain the occupancy certificate and register the transfer of common areas to the association of allottees," the tribunal observed.
Rural Project Promoters Cannot Avoid RERA Merely By Relying On Pre-RERA Sale Deeds: Odisha REAT
Case Title : Reeta Structurals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Manmath Kumar Pradhan & Anr.
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 123 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 44
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 6 July held that execution of sale deeds before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) came into force does not conclusively establish completion of a project, and a promoter cannot claim exemption from RERA merely on that basis.
A Bench comprising Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das dismissed an appeal filed by Reeta Structurals Pvt. Ltd. and its directors against an Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) order directing completion of pending amenities, obtaining of a valid occupancy certificate, formation of an association of allottees and handing over of common areas in the company's “Reeta Valley Apartment” project at Gudiapokhari Chhak, Pipili, Puri. It observed:
"As provision of the ODA Act, 1982 is not applicable to the projects in rural areas and mere executions of a number of sale deeds in respect of the flats of the project are not conclusive proof regarding completion of the present project prior to the commencement of the RERA Act, we think it appropriate to follow the views of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.62/2023 and O.A. No.48/2024 which are based on the guidelines of a Govt. notification having retrospective effect."
Odisha REAT Sets Aside RERA's ₹7 Lakh Penalty Over Notice Served At Wrong Address
Case Title : Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA)
Case Number : OREAT Appeal No. 22 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 45
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has ruled that an ex parte penalty imposed by the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) cannot be sustained where notice was served at the wrong address.
It consequently set aside a ₹7 lakh penalty imposed on Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das held that the company had been denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard because ORERA had issued notice to an incorrect address. The Tribunal said this violated the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal observed, "'Audi alterem partem' is the sinequanon of observance of principle of natural justice. Right of being heard is an essential condition precedent for effective adjudication of the lis. Therefore, breach of principle of natural justice has caused prejudice to the affected party. Therefore, as a necessary corollary the affected party i.e. the appellant is legally entitled to be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing by the learned ORERA."
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Anil Kumar Kurra v. M/s Adarsh Nivas Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. CMP/00302/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 113
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Adarsh Nivas Pvt. Ltd. to pay ₹79.84 lakh as delay interest to a homebuyer. It also ordered the developer to complete Adarsh Palm Acres Phase-2, Part-B, with all promised amenities within 60 days.
The authority further directed the company to execute the sale deed and hand over possession after receiving the balance sale consideration. It held that the developer had failed to complete the project despite receiving a substantial part of the sale consideration.
Member K. V. Jayaram passed the order.
"It is the bounden duty and obligation on the part of the promoters to complete the project in all respects and in accordance with contract between the parties," the authority observed.
Bihar RERA
Civil Remedies Under Real Estate Act Do Not Bar Criminal Action Against Builders: Bihar RERA
Case Title : Malvika Singh v. M/s Bhootesh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/Exe/180/2025 (arising out of RERA/CC/08/2025)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 117
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 25 June held that remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 do not prevent a homebuyer from pursuing criminal action where the facts disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence.
Chairman Vivek Kumar Singh directed issuance of a Public Demand Recovery Certificate to recover Rs. 11.20 lakh along with applicable interest in execution proceedings initiated by Malvika Singh against Bhootesh Construction Pvt. Ltd. concerning its Prakriti Vihar project. He also ordered the Secretary, RERA, Bihar, to forward details of all execution and complaint cases against the builder to the Enforcement Directorate, Bihar. He observed:
“This Authority is conscious that proceedings under the RERA Act are regulatory, adjudicatory and compensatory in nature. At the same time, it is equally well settled that the existence of a civil, contractual or statutory remedy does not exclude recourse to criminal law where the facts disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence.”
Homebuyers Cannot Shift Liability For Natural Growth On Vacant Plot After 7 Years: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Gopishetty Sreenivas v. M/s Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 380/2025/TGRERA
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 114
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 22 June held that homebuyers who accept vacant possession under a registered sale deed without objection cannot later hold developers liable for clearing natural rocks or wild trees after several years of inaction, as maintenance of an individual plot after handover lies with the plot owner and not the developer.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao partly disposed of a complaint against Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited, Suchirindia Projects Private Limited, Suchirindia Constructions Private Limited and Vasavi Nirmaan. The Authority observed:
“This Authority is further of the view that wild growth such as trees and shrubs on an open plot that has been left vacant for several years is a natural and foreseeable occurrence for which the developer cannot be held responsible, particularly after the lapse of seven years from the date of purchase. The maintenance and upkeep of an individual plot after its purchase and handover is the responsibility of the individual plot owner. The Complainant cannot, after allowing seven years to pass without taking any steps to develop the plot or maintain it, seek to hold the developer liable for the natural growth that has occurred on the vacant land in the intervening period.”
Punjab RERA
Punjab RERA Holds Private Property Sale Disputes Between Individuals Outside RERA Jurisdiction
Case Title : Gurcharan Kaur & Another v. Dheeraj Sharma
Case Number : GC No. 0411 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 115
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that disputes arising from private agreements to sell between individuals, where the seller is neither a promoter nor a real estate agent, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Dismissing a complaint filed by Gurcharan Kaur and Ramandeep Singh Bhatia seeking refund of the outstanding ₹13.20 lakh paid under an agreement to purchase a commercial plot from Mohali resident Dheeraj Sharma, the Authority held that the complainants had failed to establish that they were "allottees" under the Act and could not invoke RERA's adjudicatory jurisdiction.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed, "Here, the complainants have failed to satisfy that they are allottees of the project of the respondent and the seller is in default of its obligation. The overwhelming objective of RERA is to benefit allottees/promoters and protect them against the frauds committed by promoters in real estate projects. This is a case of purely between two private parties and does not come within preview of RERD Act, 2016."
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title : Shrinivas Gangadhar Pawar & 25 Other Homebuyers v. Mont Vert Elegance
Case Number : CC12600613 and 25 other connected complaints
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 120
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 20 July held that extension of a real estate project's registration does not change the possession date agreed between a promoter and homebuyers in a registered agreement for sale, and any modification to the possession date must be made through a registered deed.
Member Mahesh Pathak partly allowed a batch of 26 complaints filed by homebuyers against Pune-based Mont Vert Elegance's "Mont Vert Belcreek" project, rejecting the promoter's contention that extension of the project registration till 31 December 2028 shifted the contractually agreed possession date of 31 May 2025. The Authority observed:
“Moreso, by obtaining extension for the project registration (with or without the consent of the allottees of this project), the respondent promoter cannot try to modify the date of possession mentioned in the said registered agreements for sale, which in fact are public documents and the same needs to be changed by way of a registered deed. Hence, the MahaRERA does not find any merits in the aforesaid issue raised by the respondent promoter.”
Routine Business, Approval Delays Not Force Majeure For Delayed Home Possession: Maharashtra RERA
Case Title : Anish Charudatta Galgate & Anr. v. Rejoice Homes LLP & Ors.7
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12504437
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 116
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently ruled that a promoter cannot justify delaying possession of a home by citing routine business and regulatory issues.
These include labour shortages, supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, revised building plans, additional FSI, suspension of FSI/TDR approvals, and proposed road widening.
Partly allowing a complaint by two Pune homebuyers, the Authority directed Rejoice Homes LLP and its co-promoters to pay interest at SBI MCLR plus 2% on the actual amount paid towards the flat consideration, which the homebuyers said was about ₹34.98 lakh. The interest will run from January 1, 2025 until possession is offered with an Occupation Certificate (OC).
MahaRERA Member Mahesh Pathak passed the order on July 6, 2026.
"Mere submission of the respondent of shortage of labour, disruption of the supply chain or general difficulties during the pandemic are not sufficient to claim protection under Section 6 of the RERA. Further, as far as the other reasons cited by the promoter for the said delay, such as revised building plans, additional FSI, suspension of FSI/TDR approvals, redesign of the said project and the proposed road widening by PMC, are part of the normal process of project development. However, these are business and regulatory issues which every promoter is expected to deal with. Hence, they do not amount to force majeure under Section 6 of the RERA."
Uttar Pradesh RERA
Circular: UP RERA Issues Fresh Guidelines For Stalled Projects, Clarifies Refund Liability
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has recently reissued fresh guidelines governing refund claims in stalled housing projects. It has clarified that a group of allottees or a competent authority completing such projects will not be liable to satisfy refund orders passed earlier against the original promoter.
It also withdraws the authority's earlier Office Order dated June 20, 2023. In its place, the Authority has laid down a revised framework governing refund claims and their enforcement in such projects.
Under the revised framework, where a group of allottees or a competent authority undertakes the remaining development work under Section 8 after cancellation or expiry of the project's registration, neither of them will be liable to satisfy refund amounts awarded under earlier orders passed against the original promoter.
The Authority may, however, issue recovery certificates against the original promoter. The demand covered by such recovery certificates cannot be recovered from the assets of the project concerned.
The revised guidelines also lay down the procedure for dealing with fresh refund complaints.
Tamil Nadu RERA
Tamil Nadu RERA Holds JDA Disputes Outside RERA Jurisdiction, Rejects Bennett Property's Complaint
Case Title : M/s Bennett Property Holdings Company Ltd. v. M/s PNB Techwaves Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : CCP No. /2026 in S.R. No. 38 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 119
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) on 15 July held that disputes arising from Joint Development Agreements (JDAs), their cancellation, business transfer arrangements and consequential construction agreements do not fall within its jurisdiction where they essentially concern commercial, monetary and development rights. Such disputes must be adjudicated by the Commercial Courts.
Adjudicating Officer Tmt. N. Uma Maheswari dismissed the complaint filed by Bennett Property Holdings Company Ltd. against PNB Techwaves Pvt. Ltd., PNB Exporters Pvt. Ltd., PNB Realty Ltd. and another company as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. She observed:
“Even this construction agreement upon which the complainant relies is an outcome of a pure monetary transaction and any dispute arising out of the breaches are triable by the Commercial courts only and not this Forum. Entering upon into a construction agreement alone as a consequence of either a business contract or money transaction within the Companies is to be tried by the Commercial courts which are the exclusive courts to try such matters.”
Haryana RERA
Case Title : Gaurav Joon v. JBG Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint Nos. 1072 - 1075 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 118
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has recently ruled that execution of a registered conveyance deed does not amount to lawful delivery of possession where the promoter has not obtained the statutory approvals required to make the property legally usable.
It ruled that merely transferring title does not absolve a builder of liability for delayed possession.
The ruling was delivered by Member Dr. Geeta Rathee Singh while allowing four complaints filed by homebuyer Gaurav Joon against JBG Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. over residential plots in the developer's "AMI Greens" project at Sector-3A, Bahadurgarh.
"Mere transfer of title, however, cannot automatically be equated with lawful delivery of possession where the project itself had not obtained the requisite completion approval from the competent authority. The statutory obligation of a promoter under the Act extends beyond execution of title documents and includes completion of the project in accordance with sanctioned plans and obtaining all necessary approvals before handing over possession. Because the allottee entered into a contract to purchase a fully developed plot rather than an unimproved tract of land the transfer is legally illusory ("a mere paper transfer") if the allottee is denied the ability to utilize the property due to the respondent's failure to obtain required statutory approvals.", the court ruled.