LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: March 29- April 4, 2026

Centre Proposes Penalty Instead Of 1 Year Jail For Allottees Violating RERA Appellate Tribunal Orders

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, has been introduced in the Lok Sabha as part of a broader legislative push to decriminalise offences and rationalise penalties across a range of laws. One of the changes relates to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 68 of the Act currently allows for imprisonment of up to one year where an allottee (homebuyer) fails to comply with orders of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. It also provides for a continuing fine, which may cumulatively extend up to 10 percent of the cost of the plot, apartment, or building.

The Bill now proposes to amend this provision. In place of imprisonment, an allottee who fails to comply with, or contravenes orders or directions of the Appellate Tribunal would be liable to a monetary penalty, which may extend up to ten percent of the cost of the plot, apartment, or building, as the case may be. "Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Appellate Tribunal by allottee.—If any allottee, who fails to comply with, or contravenes any of the orders or directions of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, he shall be liable to penalty, which may extend up to ten per cent. of the plot, apartment or building cost, as the case may be"

Bombay High Court

Allottee 'Very Vulnerable', Can Withdraw Deposited Funds Despite Pre-Deposit Requirement: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Rare Townships Private Limited v. Mitul Gada Case Number : Second Appeal No. 121 of 2026 with Second Appeal No. 122 of 2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 173

On 30 March, the Bombay High Court held that an allottee can withdraw amounts deposited by a developer during an appeal despite the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed Rare Township's (developer) appeals and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order allowing allottee Mitul Gada to withdraw Rs. 3,26,37,193 deposited by the developer.

The Court observed: “The release of the amount ameliorates the situation of the allottee by relieving him of the financial constraints and also the mental anguish caused by the breach of obligations by the promoter for over a decade. The promoter and allottee cannot be placed on an equal footing. The capacity to withstand the deprivation of the legitimate amount vastly differs and the position of the allottee is generally very vulnerable.”

Real Estate Appellate Tribunals (REAT)

Maharashtra REAT

Maharashtra REAT Rejects Plea For Promoter Substitution In Lapsed RERA Project; Fresh Registration Only Remedy

Case Title : Smt. Deepa R. v. Rajiv Raghavan Pillai

Case Number : Appeal No. RC-3 of 2021

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 20

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has dismissed a plea seeking substitution of a promoter in a Goa-based real estate project, holding that such substitution cannot be permitted once the project's registration has expired and that the only remedy available is to seek fresh registration under the Act. A coram of Judicial Member Shriram R. Jagtap and Administrative Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara dismissed an appeal filed by Deepa R., proprietor of Engineers Club and purchaser of the project land, against developer Rajiv Raghavan Pillai, who was recorded as the promoter of the “Engineer's Club” project in Goa. It uphled the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order rejecting her plea for substitution of promoter.

The tribunal observed, “Substitution of promoter presupposes the existence of a valid and subsisting registration of a real estate project. In the instant case, the project registration has expired and the project is nonoperational. Accordingly, there exists no valid registration in which substitution can be effected. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant to replace her name with that of developer has no merit and invalid.”

Odisha REAT

Odisha REAT Issues Document Checklist For Authorities To Determine Promoter Status Under RERA

Case Title : Shri T. Kiran Kumar v. The Secretary, ORERA

Case Number : OREAT Appeal No.21 of 2024 (Arising out of SMCC No.163 of 2021)

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (OD) 21

The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has set aside a 10 lakh penalty imposed on T. Kiran Kumar, holding that a person cannot be treated as a “promoter” under the real estate law without documentary evidence and directing the Authority to rely on specific records before fixing liability. A bench of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das held that liability cannot rest solely on inspection reports.

Referring to the absence of ownership records, development agreements, statutory permissions, and transaction or marketing documents linking Kumar to the project, the tribunal observed, “So in absence of the above mentioned materials it cannot be concluded only on the basis of the inspection report dtd. 15.7.2022 of the Enforcement Officer of the ORERA that Sri T.Kiran Kumar has developed a plotted project in the name 'SSR Layout' at Ginjriguda without registering it with the ORERA”.

Real Estate Regulatory Authorities

Haryana RERA

Haryana RERA Orders Signature Infrabuild To Pay Interest For Delay In Affordable Housing Project

Case Title : Avtar Singh Guleria Versus Signature Infrabuild Private Limited

Case Number : Complaint no. 897 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 62

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently directed Signature Infrabuild to pay interest to a homebuyer for delay in handing over possession of a flat in its Gurugram project, holding that the developer failed to meet the stipulated timeline and had not obtained the Occupation Certificate. A bench comprising Member Phool Singh Saini observed that the delay in offering possession amounted to a failure on the part of the promoter to fulfill its obligations.

“The Authority is of the considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondent in offering possession of the subject unit and it is a failure on the part of the promoter to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities to hand over possession within the stipulated period,” the order said.

Haryana RERA Dismisses Compensation Plea, Says Allottee Continuing In Delayed Project Entitled Only To Interest

Case Title : Col. Kanwar Ripu Sain Jaswal & Anr. v. M/s EMAAR India Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. 281 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 59

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has recently refused to grant additional compensation to homebuyers who chose to remain in a delayed project, holding that once delayed possession interest has been awarded, no separate compensation can be claimed for the same delay. “When the complainants have already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession. Complaint in hands is thus dismissed. ,” Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar said while dismissing the complaint on February 10.

Karnataka RERA

Karnataka RERA Orders Casa Grande To Pay Interest For Delay Over Changing Clubhouse Without Homebuyers' Consent

Case Title : Arpan Sarkar & Anr. v. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. 00754/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 61

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has recently held that Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd. made an attempt to change the location of a promised clubhouse without the consent of homebuyers and was liable for delay in handing over possession, directing it to pay interest to Arpan Sarkar and Priya Sarkar. Chairman Rakesh Singh observed, “The Respondent in this case has made an attempt to change the location of the clubhouse without the consent of allottees. There are dispute as to the location of the clubhouse. The BBMP plan indicates that the clubhouse is in the south east corner of the project. However, the proposed clubhouse site is allegedly situated on BDA land that was encroached upon by the builder or land owner. It is also reported in the spot inspection dated 08.08.2025.”

OC Application Date, Not Issuance, Decides RERA Applicability: Karnataka RERA Dismisses Plea Against Pre-RERA Project

Case Title : Promont Residents Welfare Association v. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. & Anr

Case Number : Complaint No. 00972/2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 60

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dismissed a complaint by the Promont Residents Welfare Association against Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. and The Promont Hilltop Private Limited, holding that it did not have jurisdiction as the project did not fall within the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. A Bench of Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy recorded that the developers had applied for partial occupancy certificates on May 19, 2016 and June 20, 2017 before the enactment of RERA. It held that the applicability of RERA depends on the date of such application, not on when the certificate is issued.

“So, upon completion of the tower 1 and 2, the respondents have applied occupancy certificate prior to enactment of RERA. Irrespective of when the occupancy certificate was issued, the eligibility for obtaining occupancy certificate has to be reckoned from the date of application itself. From that point of view, the provision of RERA doesn't attract to the case on hand. Therefore, even though the occupancy certificate was issued subsequent to enactment of RERA, the case falls within the exemption provided under the Act. Hence, the present complaint would not be maintainable in any stretch of imagination before the Authority,” the bench said.

Bihar RERA

Bihar RERA Drops Suo Motu Case Against Developer; Finds No Advertisement Of Unregistered Project

Case Title : Authorised Representative of RERA v M/s Kushika Tradserv Pvt Ltd

Case Number : RERA/SM/682/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 58

The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dropped suo motu proceedings against developer Kushika Tradserv Pvt Ltd in relation to its project “Basmati Vatika." The Authority held that the action, initiated under Sections 35 and 59 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, could not be sustained, as no advertisement of the project was found. Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh directed the developer to apply for registration of the project.

The Authority also restrained the promoter from advertising, marketing, or selling any unit until registration is obtained. It requested the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar to ensure that no sale deeds are executed in respect of the project until registration is secured. Explaining its reasoning, the Authority observed that "after perusing the material placed on record and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is clear that project has been applied for registration with the Authority and that no advertisement has been found at the work site or on online platform which could establish contravention of section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and development) Act 2016".