LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: August 24 - August 29, 2026
Shivani PS
31 Aug 2026 11:41 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Clan City Welfare Association & 3 Ors. and connected appeals, 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 56
Harathi Prakash Nalla & Anr. v. Secretary, Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 57
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. P. Malathi, 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 58
Salandra Mohan Babu & Ors. v. M/s Bharati Builders (Formerly Known as Sirisampada Estates & Builders) & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 131
Shri Amar Gupta v. M/s Shakti Developers & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA (AS) 132
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Maharashtra REAT
Failed Conciliation Report Cannot Be Basis For Deciding RERA Complaints: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Clan City Welfare Association & 3 Ors. and connected appeals
Case Number : M.A. No. 580/26 in Appeal No. AT006/00517/2026 and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 56
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 5 August held that once conciliation between a promoter and homebuyers fails, the conciliation panel's report cannot form the basis for deciding their complaints because the panel's role is confined to facilitating an amicable settlement.
A Bench comprising Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara partly allowed Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd.'s stay applications and permitted the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to decide the complaints afresh on their merits without relying on the Special Conciliation Panel's report. It held:
“Bare perusal of the said provision would make it abundantly clear that, said provision is to facilitate amicable conciliation of dispute between the promoters and the allottees through dispute settlement forums set up by the consumer or promoter associations. If there is no amicable conciliation of the dispute between the promoters and allottees through a dispute settlement forum, in that case, accepting such report and findings would be contrary to the legislative mandate and intent reflected in said provision.”
Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Harathi Prakash Nalla & Anr. v. Secretary, Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 167 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 57
On 24 August, the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) set aside an order dismissing a complaint against BCV Developers Pvt. Ltd. and directed the developer to pay interest as compensation for delayed possession and non-completion of promised amenities at the “Juniper at Brigade Orchards” project in Devanahalli.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. observed that principles laid down in consumer law concerning the rights of allottees and consequences of a promoter's failure to fulfil contractual and statutory obligations can also be applied in RERA proceedings, where they are consistent with the scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It held:
“It is not in dispute that, prior to the enactment of the RERA Act, aggrieved Allottees were required to seek redressal of their grievances primarily through the Consumer Forum. Even after the enactment of the RERA Act, an aggrieved allottee is not precluded from approaching the Consumer Forum for appropriate relief, subject to the law governing the exercise of such remedies.”
Tamil Nadu REAT
Case Title : The Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. P. Malathi
Case Number : Appeal No. 70 of 2026 & M.A. No. 194 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 58
On 24 August, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) set aside a direction of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) requiring the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to provide water treatment equipment to all 133 flats in its Higher Income Group (HIG) housing project.
A Coram comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu held that relief sought by an individual allottee cannot be extended to other flat owners who had not filed the complaint and partly allowed the Housing Board's appeal. The Bench observed:
“With regard to the provision of Water Treatment Equipment for each Flat, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, out of 133 Flats, only the respondent had filed the complaint seeking for the Water Treatment Equipment. In such case, giving a direction to the appellant Board to provide the Water Treatment Equipment for all the Flats, cannot stand. Accordingly, the same is set aside.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Telangana RERA
Direct Contract With Homebuyers Not A Precondition For Promoter Liability: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Salandra Mohan Babu & Ors. v. M/s Bharati Builders (Formerly Known as Sirisampada Estates & Builders) & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint Nos. 878/2025 - 885/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 131
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 25 August held that a promoter cannot avoid liability under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 merely because the promoter has no direct contract with homebuyers.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao held that promoter liability can arise from participation in a project's development, control over it, receipt or use of allottee funds, or commercial benefit from the project, and does not depend on the traditional doctrine of privity of contract. They observed:
“At the outset, this Authority observes that the RE(R&D) Act is not founded upon the narrow doctrine of privity of contract as understood under traditional civil jurisprudence. The RE(R&D) Act creates statutory obligations which operate independent of private contractual arrangements. The liability of a 'promoter' under RE(R&D) flows not merely from contractual execution but from participation in development, control over the project, share of saleable area, receipt or utilisation of allottee funds, and benefit derived from the project scheme.”
Assam RERA
Flat Owners' Association Can File RERA Complaint But Cannot Be Sued Under It: Assam RERA
Case Title : Shri Amar Gupta v. M/s Shakti Developers & Anr.
Case Number : Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2025/40
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (AS) 132
The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 21 August held that an association of allottees can file a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, but cannot be made a respondent in a complaint under the Act as it does not fall within the categories of 'promoter', 'allottee' or 'real estate agent'.
Chairperson P.K. Borthakur dismissed a complaint filed by commercial unit owner Amar Gupta against Shakti Square Housing Society over maintenance charges, water supply and access to common amenities at the Shakti Square project. The Bench observed:
“The Explanation appended to Section 31(1) provides that, 'for the purpose of this sub-section, 'person' shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force.' This Explanation operates only to enlarge the class of persons who may be treated as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file a complaint (i.e., on the complainant's side). It does not, and by its terms cannot, enlarge the three categories of respondent against whom a complaint may be directed. Had the Legislature intended an association of allottees to also be answerable to a complaint under Section 31, it would have said so expressly, as it did in respect of locus standi to complain. The deliberate inclusion of the association of allottees for one purpose, and its omission for the other, in the same sub-section, is a strong indicator that a housing society/association of allottees is not a person against whom a complaint under Section 31 lies.”