LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: April 20- April 25, 2026
Shivani PS
26 April 2026 10:21 AM IST
Nominal Index
Sanroyal Builders and Contractors Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Divya Balu, 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 67
Vandana Parvez v. IVR Hotels and Resorts Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 104
Nidhi Sao v. Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 10
M/s Sai Enterprises v. Sangeeta Ravi Punjabi & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 232
Soumya Ranjan Jena v. Priyata Lipsa & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 25
Kamlesh Valji Balsara & Anr. v. M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure and Realty & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 26
Arvind Nagar Residential Welfare Society v. Pawan Goods Merchants Co. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 73
High Courts
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
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.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals (REAT)
Odisha REAT
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"
Maharashtra REAT
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"
Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority
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.”