LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: June 29 - July 5, 2026
Shivani PS
6 July 2026 3:15 PM IST
Nominal Index
Macrotech Developers Ltd. v. Suryakant Yashwant Jadhav & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 358
Emaar India Limited v. Poonam Goel & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LLBiz REAT(HR) 41
Anil Kumar Kurra v. M/s Adarsh Nivas Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 113
Madhu Mishra v. M/s Redbrick Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 112
Gopishetty Sreenivas v. M/s Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 114
High Court
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Macrotech Developers Ltd. v. Suryakant Yashwant Jadhav & Ors.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 297 and 298 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 358
The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that although the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not recognise “fit-out possession”, a promoter cannot rely on its own failure to hand over fit-out possession within the agreed timeline to invoke a contractual grace period and defer final possession.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed second appeals filed by Macrotech Developers Ltd. (formerly Bellissima Hi-Rise Builders Pvt. Ltd.) and upheld a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) order directing the developer to refund amounts paid by two allottees in the 'Palava Lakeside A to H' project at Kalyan, along with interest. The Single-Judge Bench held:
“The statutory provisions of RERA do not recognise any concept of possession for fit outs and provides for the rights and obligations of the parties with respect of the date of handing over final possession. The date of possession for fit outs would be relevant only for determining the date of final possession. Where the Appellant failed to hand over possession for fit outs by 28th February, 2018, the Appellants cannot take disadvantage of their own failure to comply with the terms of agreement to factor in the grace period applicable to date of possession for fit outs and defer the date of final possession.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Haryana REAT
Limitation Act Doesn't Apply To RERA Complaints: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Emaar India Limited v. Poonam Goel & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : Appeal No. 946 of 2024 and connected appeals
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 41
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) has recently held that complaints filed before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot be dismissed as time-barred merely because they were filed after possession was handed over.
It ruled that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not prescribe any limitation period for such complaints. The tribunal also held that homebuyers do not lose their right to seek compensation for delayed possession after executing conveyance deeds.
The tribunal, comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan, dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Emaar India Ltd. and Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd.
It upheld orders directing the developers to pay delay compensation to homebuyers in the Gurgaon Greens and Orchard Avenue projects.
"The Act neither incorporates nor makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation Act to complaints instituted before the Authority. In the absence of any express legislative mandate, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat a remedy created under a legislation enacted for protection of allottees and regulation of the real estate sector," the tribunal ruled.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Anil Kumar Kurra v. M/s Adarsh Nivas Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. CMP/00302/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 113
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Adarsh Nivas Pvt. Ltd. to pay ₹79.84 lakh as delay interest to a homebuyer. It also ordered the developer to complete Adarsh Palm Acres Phase-2, Part-B, with all promised amenities within 60 days.
The authority further directed the company to execute the sale deed and hand over possession after receiving the balance sale consideration. It held that the developer had failed to complete the project despite receiving a substantial part of the sale consideration.
Member K. V. Jayaram passed the order.
"It is the bounden duty and obligation on the part of the promoters to complete the project in all respects and in accordance with contract between the parties," the authority observed.
Bihar RERA
Bihar RERA Directs Redbrick Infrabuild To Refund ₹16 Lakh For Failure To Convey Marketable Title
Case Title : Madhu Mishra v. M/s Redbrick Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/405/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 112
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA) on 19 June directed Redbrick Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. to refund Rs 16 lakh to a homebuyer after it found that the developer failed to convey a clear, marketable and legally transferable title in respect of a plot sold under its “Redbrick Empire” project.
Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh held that Redbrick Infrabuild failed to discharge its obligation to transfer valid title, and observed that the buyer's inability to obtain mutation due to the land being recorded as “Gairmajarua Malik land” resulted in deprivation of proprietary rights. He observed:
“Article 300A of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his or her property save by authority of law. In the present case, although the sale deed in respect of the subject property has been duly executed and registered in favour of the Complainant upon payment of the entire sale consideration and fulfilment of all contractual obligations, the subsequent rejection of the mutation application by the competent revenue authority on the ground that the land is recorded as Gairmajarua Malik land has effectively deprived the Complainant of the true enjoyment and recognition of her proprietary rights.”
Homebuyers Cannot Shift Liability For Natural Growth On Vacant Plot After 7 Years: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Gopishetty Sreenivas v. M/s Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 380/2025/TGRERA
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 114
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 22 June held that homebuyers who accept vacant possession under a registered sale deed without objection cannot later hold developers liable for clearing natural rocks or wild trees after several years of inaction, as maintenance of an individual plot after handover lies with the plot owner and not the developer.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao partly disposed of a complaint against Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited, Suchirindia Projects Private Limited, Suchirindia Constructions Private Limited and Vasavi Nirmaan. The Authority observed:
“This Authority is further of the view that wild growth such as trees and shrubs on an open plot that has been left vacant for several years is a natural and foreseeable occurrence for which the developer cannot be held responsible, particularly after the lapse of seven years from the date of purchase. The maintenance and upkeep of an individual plot after its purchase and handover is the responsibility of the individual plot owner. The Complainant cannot, after allowing seven years to pass without taking any steps to develop the plot or maintain it, seek to hold the developer liable for the natural growth that has occurred on the vacant land in the intervening period.”