LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: May 18 - May 23, 2026
Shivani PS
25 May 2026 10:18 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Admire Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 13
R. C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Sharad Maheshwari & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 510
Sudhir Vitthal Mulay v. Rui Universal Realties, 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 33
Megha Chowdhri & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 82
Shri Mani Pranjal Saikia v. M/s Aradhya Builders and Developers, 2026 LLBiz RERA(AS) 83
Naresh Moturam Bhojwani v. Shree Tirupati Greenfield, 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 84
HIGH COURTS
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Admire Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : MA No. 68 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 13
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a company that agrees to develop land, obtain statutory approvals, and secure RERA registration before selling plots could prima facie be treated as a promoter under the real estate law.
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput dismissed an appeal filed by Admire Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. against a Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order remanding a plot buyer's complaint to RERA for fresh adjudication.
“Under the Act of 2016, word promoter has been very widely defined including a person who develops a land into a project whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots and it further provides that any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale.,” the Court held.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: R. C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Sharad Maheshwari & Anr.
Case Number : RFA 37/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 510
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court decree directing R. C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. to refund ₹18 lakh to Sharad Maheshwari and Vandana Maheshwari. The court found that the developer had illegally cancelled their villa allotment and effectively coerced them into accepting a purported “full and final settlement.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the developer's appeal. She observed that settlements extracted without free consent cannot extinguish a buyer's claim.
“It is well-settled that a plea of full and final settlement, must be founded on free consent. Where the acceptance of a lesser amount occurs under protest or coercive circumstances, it does not constitute a binding accord and satisfaction and, consequently, does not extinguish the original claim.”, the court observed
“The Plaintiff, thus occupied a vulnerable position and was left with no viable alternative but to accept whatever amount was offered. The learned District Judge correctly observed that the Plaintiff, when pitted against a large developer with superior bargaining power, was effectively coerced into accepting the Rs. 44 lakhs offered by the Defendant,” the court added.
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Maharashtra REAT
Maharashtra REAT Bars RERA Relief For Rehabilitation Flat Disputes In Redevelopment Projects
Case Title : Sudhir Vitthal Mulay v. Rui Universal Realties
Case Number : Appeal No. AT005000000174633 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 33
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 4 May held that existing housing society members cannot seek relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in disputes relating to rehabilitation flats allotted in redevelopment projects, as such disputes arise from the development agreement executed between the society and the developer.
Members Shriram R. Jagtap (J) and Dr. Rajagopal Devara (A) dismissed an appeal filed by Sudhir Vitthal Mulay against Rui Universal Realties and clarified that in redevelopment projects, RERA applies only to the sale component and not to rehabilitation flats allotted to existing society members. The Tribunal observed:
“Accordingly, the transactions and contractual obligations are directly governed by the said development agreement. Any dispute arising therefrom must be enforced either individually or through the Society, in accordance with the terms of said development agreement. The said development agreement cannot be enforced under the provisions of RERA Act, 2016.”
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Punjab RERA
Homebuyers Cannot Seek Refund Of Contractually Agreed Super Area Charges: Punjab RERA
Case Title: Megha Chowdhri & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. RERA/GC No. 0445 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 82
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a developer cannot unilaterally charge homebuyers for any increase in carpet area or super area unless such charges are expressly agreed upon in the buyer's agreement.
However, it refused to order refund of super area-based amounts paid by buyers in a case against Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd., after finding that the pricing structure had been clearly disclosed and accepted by the buyers at the time of booking.
Member Arunvir Vashishta, who decided the matter, held, “But definitely in the opinion of this bench nothing can be charged for an unilateral increase either in the carpet area or in super area if so has not been agreed upon by the parties in the buyer's agreement hat has to be ofcourse in the form as prescribed in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Act. RERA rules, 2017.”
Assam RERA
Case Title: Shri Mani Pranjal Saikia v. M/s Aradhya Builders and Developers
Case Number : RERA/ASSAM/COM/2025/02
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(AS) 83
The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) recently declined to immediately direct execution of a sale deed in a homebuyer dispute, holding that WhatsApp chats, loan approval documents, and EMI records were not enough to establish full and final payment for a flat without proper receipts or authenticated bank statements.
Chairman Paban Kr. Borthakur observed, "However, upon careful consideration, it is observed that the material produced by the complainant does not present a clear and cogent account of the payments allegedly made. The WhatsApp communications, though voluminous, do not conclusively establish the amounts paid on specific dates and, instead, create ambiguity in the absence of a structured and verifiable statement of payments."
Maharashtra RERA
Provisional Flat Allotment Given As Loan Security Does Not Create Allottee Rights: Maharashtra RERA
Case Title : Naresh Moturam Bhojwani v. Shree Tirupati Greenfield
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000591428
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 84
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held in a case that a provisional flat allotment issued merely as security for a loan did not conclusively establish a promoter-allottee relationship while dismissing a complaint by a man seeking a refund or possession of a flat in Shree Tirupati Greenfield's “Siddheshwar Gardens” project.
Member Ravindra Deshpande said the Provisional Reservation Letter relied upon by complainant Naresh Moturam Bhojwani had to be read in its entirety.
“Once a party signs and accepts a document, such party is presumed to have read, understood and accepted all the terms and conditions contained therein. The Complainant cannot selectively rely only upon those recitals which support allotment of the flat while ignoring the specific recital contained in Clause 6(3) regarding the transaction being security against loan.”, the authority observed.