LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: April 5- April 11, 2026

Nominal Index

Gera Developers Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 184

Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Ltd v. B. Srinivas Rao & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 10

Sobha Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 22

Aruna Garg vs. M/s Chintels India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 64

Shri Dinesh Chandra Deka & Anr. v. M/s Vivek Developers & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA(AS) 63

High Courts

Bombay High Court

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

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 Authority

Haryana RERA

rerCase Title : Aruna Garg vs. M/s Chintels India Private Limited

Case Number : Complaint No. 2932 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 64

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram has declined to follow committee-fixed compensation rates and instead awarded Rs 4.16 crore to a homebuyer after determining compensation at Rs 13,000 per sq. ft., relying in part on an AI-based overview of rising property prices. Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held that the apartment formed part of a project found wholly unsafe for habitation due to structural defects, observing, “What to say of unit allotted to the complainant, entire project has been found unsafe for human dwelling. Allottee-complainant cannot be blamed for this defect, rather it was sole responsibility of the respondent to construct the project as per prescribed norms.”

The Authority observed that it was guided by principles of natural justice and not strictly bound by rules of evidence. It then referred to an AI-based overview of market trends, noting: “According to AI overview, the property prices in Sector-109, Gurugram experienced significant appreciation between February 2022 and March 2026 largely driven by developers of Dwarka Express Way. The average property rates for apartment rose from approximately Rs.6500-7000 per square feet in early 2022 to roughly Rs.12000-12400 per square feet by Quarter-1, 2026. The overall appreciation in property rates in Sector-109, Gurugram saw a dramatic increase of approximately 64.7% over the last three years.”

Assam RERA

Landowner Who Completed Stalled Project Is 'Promoter,' Liable To Homebuyers: Assam RERA

Case Title : Shri Dinesh Chandra Deka & Anr. v. M/s Vivek Developers & Anr.

Case Number : RERA/ASSAM/COM/2023/43

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(AS) 63

The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that that a landowner who takes over and completes a stalled housing project becomes a “promoter” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and is jointly liable with the original promoter for obligations owed to homebuyers, including delivery of possession and refund with interest.

“When the Development Agreement dated: 12.01.2015 was entered, the respondent no. 2 was the land lord. But after taking over the project and completing construction, the land lord is no longer the landlord only but has entered into the shoes of promoter. The liability of the respondent no.2 (land lord) becomes joint and severable with the erstwhile promoter, even if he did not personally receive the original booking or advance amount from the complainant. In the changed circumstances the liability of the respondent no 2 (land lord) is to complete the project as per the original sanctioned plan and specifications and if the existing buyer or the allottee (here the complainant) wish to withdraw from the project, the respondent no. 2 (current promoter) is liable as per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to refund the money with interest. Otherwise to handover the possession of the said flat to the complainant and receive the balance payment as per the agreement", Bench held.