LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: July 13 - July 18, 2026
Shivani PS
20 July 2026 12:21 PM IST
Nominal Index
Navaratan Jhunjhunwala & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 119
Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 394
Reeta Structurals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Manmath Kumar Pradhan & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 44
Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA), 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 45
M/s. Adarsh Nivaas Private Limited v. Anil Kumar Kurra & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 43
Sabarinath K.N. v. Sobha Westhill Owners Association & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 46
Malvika Singh v. M/s Bhootesh Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 117
Gaurav Joon v. JBG Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 118
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.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Odisha REAT
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."
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."
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
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.”
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.