LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: June 22 - June 28, 2026
Shivani PS
29 Jun 2026 10:49 AM IST
Nominal Index
M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal v. Shri Ji Builders and Developers, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 47
Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Kalpita Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 351
Rajan Chandiramani v. Swadhinta Builders LLP & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 355
The Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 108
Greha Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 113
Diograzia Realcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhutani Group, 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 39
Avalon Royal Park Homebuyers' Association v. GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 110
In Re: M/s Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 111
High Courts
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal v. Shri Ji Builders and Developers
Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 2857 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 47
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently has held that MP-RERA could not reject a real estate project registration application for non-production of a cooperative society's 25-year-old internal records when registered title documents and revenue records had already been produced.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed MP-RERA's appeal and upheld an earlier order directing the authority to process the registration application filed by Shri Ji Builders and Developers for its proposed "Krishna Orchid" project in Bhopal.
"To demand historical internal records of a cooperative from 1999, twenty-five years post-facto, is to impose an impossible burden of proof," the court observed.
Bombay High Court
TDR From Reserved Land Cannot Defeat Deemed Conveyance Rights Of Societies: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Kalpita Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9694 of 2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 351
On 18 June, the Bombay High Court upheld the grant of deemed conveyance in favour of three housing societies in Mumbai, holding that compensation or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arising from acquisition of land reserved for a municipal market and a primary school cannot be treated as development potential of a residential layout so as to delay conveyance.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly allowed a writ petition filed by Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. challenging the deemed conveyance order, while rejecting the developer's contention that future development rights from the reserved lands could be used for proposed Buildings N and P and therefore justify deferring conveyance. The Bench observed:
“The compensation receivable either in monetary terms or in the form of TDR cannot be treated as a development potential for land to be conveyed in favour of Respondent-Societies. Once land is acquired, it would get separated from the layout and would have no relationship with the development carried out in the layout.”
Case Title: Rajan Chandiramani v. Swadhinta Builders LLP & Connected Matters
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 559 of 2025 & Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 355
The Bombay High Court has held that the liberty granted to homebuyers to seek revocation of a project's registration does not foreclose their right to execute an order directing completion of the project through other modes available in law.
Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the ruling while allowing appeals filed by several allottees of the stalled "Shri Vallabh Residency" project in Kandivali (West), Mumbai.
The court set aside a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) order refusing to permit part of a proposed amendment to the allottees' execution applications. The amendment sought completion of the project either by the allottees or through another agency appointed by the tribunal at the developer's cost.
The court observed, "If the revocation of registration was to be provided as a panacea for the disobedience of the orders passed by the Authorities under the RERA 2016, the Parliament would not have made multiple provisions for enforcement of the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act."
Kerala High Court
Case Title : The Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : WP(C) No. 17474 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 108
The Kerala High Court has held that the exemption from registration available for renovation, repair or redevelopment projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be claimed where the original project itself was required to be registered under the law.
Dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) and its Project Director, the court upheld interim orders of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA). The authority had held complaints filed by homebuyers of the Chander Kunj Army Towers project in Kochi to be maintainable.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that once a project is found to be mandatorily registrable under the Act, the exemption under Section 3(2)(c) is unavailable.
"When the original project itself is found to be mandatorily registrable under Section 3, the question of exemption as contemplated under Section 3(2)(c) would not arise.", it held.
Case Title : Greha Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 21189 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 113
The Kerala High Court recently (June 22) admitted a writ petition challenging a Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) order requiring registration of projects built on less than 500 square metres of land if they comprise more than eight units.
The matter came up before Justice Gopinath P. The court admitted the petition and granted K-RERA time to obtain instructions.
Greha Homes Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, contends that its "Greha Five Elements" project, comprising 14 apartment units on 445 square metres of land at Kanayannoor Village in Elamkulam, Ernakulam, falls outside K-RERA's jurisdiction.
To consider the contentions raised on merits, the court directed that adjudication of any complaint against the petitioner concerning the project be deferred by 10 days.
The court observed, "In order to consider the contentions raised on merits, I direct that the adjudication of any complaint against the petitioner in respect of the project in question shall be deferred by a period of 10 days."
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Uttar Pradesh REAT
Virtual Office Spaces Treated As Intangible Property, Fall Outside RERA's Scope: Uttar Pradesh REAT
Case Title : Diograzia Realcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhutani Group
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 382 to 392 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 39
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that non-lockable or virtual office spaces fall outside the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It ruled that the law governs physical real estate units and does not cover such intangible investment interests.
The tribunal consequently set aside U.P. RERA's directions requiring Bhutani Group to execute conveyance deeds, hand over possession and pay delay interest.
The ruling was delivered by a tribunal comprising Judicial Member Sanjai Khare and Technical Member Devindar Singh Chaudhry.
The tribunal ruled, "Having regard to the provisions of the Act, virtual space is not considered to be covered under the Act, 2016, which primarily regulates sale and purchase of physical real estate units in a building, and does not explicitly address intangible digital property like virtual space."
"The property law principles, such as, exclusivity, transferability and enforceability still struggle to apply to virtual property because of their intangible nature. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the allottee of a virtual space is promised a proportionate share of lease rent payable in future which is not akin to handing over/taking possession of a unit earmarked by boundaries for which the buyer/allottee has paid an amount to the promoter. It is, therefore, not within the purview of the Act, 2016. The dispute, is of a civil nature pertaining to investment, whereas, Act 2016 deals with builder-buyer relationship with regard to delivery of physical possession of the unit to the allottee or with withdrawal from the delayed project as per provisions of Section 18 of Act, 2016. The allottee can take remedy for breach of the terms of the agreement before an appropriate forum in accordance with law," it added, explaining its rationale.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Rajasthan RERA
Rajasthan RERA Orders Forensic Audit Of Avalon Royal Park Project, Says IBC Moratorium Not A Bar
Case Title : Avalon Royal Park Homebuyers' Association v. GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : (151) RJ/RERA/C/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(RJ) 110
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has ordered a forensic audit of the Avalon Royal Park housing project in Bhiwadi after finding significant inconsistencies in the developer's financial disclosures.
It also noted a substantial gap between the expenditure claimed and the physical progress achieved at the project.
Chairperson Veenu Gupta held that the audit could proceed despite insolvency proceedings against the developer. The authority ruled that the exercise would be investigative and fact-finding in nature. It would not interfere with the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or violate the moratorium in force under insolvency law.
The authority ruled, "At this stage, the proposed forensic audit is merely intended to facilitate independent verification of project accounts and examination of compliance with statutory obligations under the Act, 2016 and to provide foundational material for any further action, if warranted, in accordance with law. The same is essentially investigative and fact finding in nature and does not, by itself, interfere with the powers exercised by the RP under the IBC.”
Telangana RERA
Telangana RERA Fines Indo Qatar Projects ₹38.63 Lakh For Marketing Unregistered Projects
Case Title : In Re: M/s Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Suo Motu Case No. D6/939/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 111
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has directed Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd. to pay a consolidated penalty of ₹38.63 lakh. The authority found that the company advertised and marketed multiple unregistered real estate projects. It also facilitated the sale of one project without obtaining registration as a real estate agent.
A coram of Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao observed that registration is a mandatory pre-condition before a promoter undertakes any commercial or promotional activity relating to a real estate project.
It observed, "The legislative mandate is explicit, no promoter is authorised to advertise, promote, solicit bookings, sell, or offer for sale any plot, apartment, or building within a real estate project, or any portion thereof, situated in a designated planning area, unless the project has been registered with the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, imposes a non-derogable obligation on promoters, making registration a precondition for carrying out any commercial transactions or promotional activities in respect of a project."