LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: May 25 - May 30, 2026
Shivani PS
1 Jun 2026 11:52 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Vandana Sabharwal v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 213
Advance India Projects Limited v. State of Haryana and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 26
M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 34
Ravi Shankar & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 33
Mr. Ejaz Shoaib Hussain and Mr. Arbaaz Shoaib v. M/s Honest Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 85
Heet Builders Private Limited v. Mrs. Bhharati Kondaji Kanade, 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 86
Narasimhula Upendra v. M/s R Homes & Ors. connected matters, 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 87
Mukesh Sharma vs Experion Developers Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 88
Kunal Vashisht Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. & Others, 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 90
Rita Kantilal Ruparelia v. Mantri Developers Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA(KR) 89
Tvl. G. Sathya & 110 Others v. Ozone Projects Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 91
Supreme Court
Case Title: VANDANA SABHARWAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).661/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 213
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a writ petition alleging that Rs. 13,833 crore out of Rs. 14,599 crore collected from homebuyers by the Jaypee Group was diverted through transfers to group entities and undervalued land transactions.
The matter came up before a bench comprising the Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice.
“Issue notice, returnable on 15.07.2026,” the court recorded.
Filed by a homebuyer in the 'KASABLANCA' project at Jaypee Wishtown in Noida, the petition states that despite paying for a residential unit more than a decade ago, the petitioner has received neither possession nor refund. The plea further states that the project's RERA registration expired in December 2021.
High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title : Advance India Projects Limited v. State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CWP-14732-2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 26
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to entertain a real estate developer's challenge to a Haryana RERA refund order, holding that a promoter/developer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy merely to avoid the pre-deposit requirement.
A Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri was hearing a petition filed by Advance India Projects Limited against a Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing it to refund over ₹1.02 crore to two allottees in its “AIPL Joy Gallery” commercial project in Gurugram.
“Merely because filing of the appeal by petitioner would entail a pre-deposit of some amount cannot be a ground for the petitioner to bypass the alternate remedy, which is statutory as well as efficacious,” the Court observed.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Haryana REAT
Case Title: M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram
Case Number: Appeal No. 1226 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 34
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently upheld Haryana RERA's refusal to register Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd.'s multi-level parking-cum-commercial project. It held that the company was merely a licensee with no right to transfer any part of the property and therefore did not qualify as a promoter under the law.
A bench of Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan held that the company's role was limited to developing infrastructure for Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). It was only entitled to recover its investment through operation of the parking facility, licensing commercial spaces, and earning revenue through advertisements and hoardings.
“The appellant being concessionaire has no right to further transfer by sale, lease or otherwise any part of the property/commercial infrastructure.”, it ruled.
Karnataka REAT
Market Value Rise, Hypothetical Future Profits Not Enough For RERA Compensation: Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Ravi Shankar & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 125/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 34
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) has dismissed an appeal by two Bengaluru homebuyers seeking enhanced compensation over delayed possession of flats in Vaishnavi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.'s “Vaishnavi Mandara” project, upholding a Karnataka RERA order that awarded them ₹2 lakh for mental agony and ₹7,000 in litigation costs.
The tribunal bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N said compensation claims under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act must be supported by cogent evidence.
“Mere escalation in market value, generalised hardship or hypothetical future profits ordinarily may not, by themselves constitute a valid claim for compensation towards loss of opportunity under the Act.”
Bihar RERA
Case Title: Mr. Ejaz Shoaib Hussain and Mr. Arbaaz Shoaib v. M/s Honest Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/294/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 85
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a landowner's claim that a builder had shortchanged him in the allocation of flats in the “Hashmi Residency” project in Patna was not sustainable, after finding that he had accepted an alternative flat in another project towards adjustment of his share.
The single bench of Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh said the subsequent agreement signed by the parties reflected their consent to the adjustment of the complainant's share.
“Accordingly, this Bench holds that the claim of the Complainant regarding deficiency in handing over the agreed share is not sustainable, as the Complainant has already received his share in the project as explained in the preceding paragraphs.”
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title: Heet Builders Private Limited v. Mrs. Bhharati Kondaji Kanade
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000396625
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 86
he Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held that a homebuyer who objected to the placement of a lavatory in a flat on Vastu-Shastra grounds could not avoid payment obligations under the agreement for sale.
MahaRERA member Ravindra Deshpande was dealing with a complaint filed by Heet Builders Pvt Ltd seeking a declaration that its termination of an agreement for sale executed with homebuyer Bhharati Kondaji Kanade was valid on account of non-payment of the balance consideration amount.
“If the respondent is genuinely aggrieved by the layout of the flat or any facilities attached thereto, she is always at liberty to institute a separate complaint before this Authority in accordance with RERA Act 2016,Such a course of action would ensure that the grievance is examined independently within the statutory framework without conflicting it with the present proceedings which are confined to the issues arising out of the complainant's claim,” the Authority observed.
Telangana RERA
Telangana RERA Holds Sale Agreements Disguised As “Investment Agreements” Cannot Bypass Section 3
Case Title : Narasimhula Upendra v. M/s R Homes & Ors. connected matters
Case Number: Complaint Nos. 177/2025/TGRERA along with connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 87
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 16 May held that developers cannot evade the mandatory registration requirement under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by disguising apartment sale transactions as “investment agreements”.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao directed R Homes, Hyderabad, to refund Rs. 2.43 crore collected from homebuyers in relation to its “Jai Vasavis Bliss Heights” project at Yamnampet Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, along with interest at 10.70% per annum. The Bench observed:
“this Authority deprecates the conduct of the Respondent No.1 in adopting a circuitous and impermissible method by styling the transactions as 'Agreements for Investment' with a view to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Such an artifice is a colourable exercise designed to defeat the object and scheme of the statute.”
Haryana RERA
Haryana RERA Awards ₹26.96 Lakh For Loss Of Appreciation Due To Delay In “The Heartsong” Project
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma vs Experion Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No. 2515-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 88
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 6 May held that a homebuyer is entitled to compensation for loss of property appreciation arising from delayed possession, and directed Experion Developers to pay Rs. 26.96 lakh on this account, along with additional compensation and costs.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed that residential property prices in Sector 108, Gurugram had witnessed substantial appreciation over the years and assessed compensation on the basis of notional investment growth. He held:
“Residential property in Sector-108 has been a massive appreciation over the long term, with some data suggesting flat prices grew by over 130% in the last 5 years (relative to early 2023). It is presumed that if the amount paid by the complainant ie. Rs.20,73,670/- up to 30.07.2016 (date of payment) was invested in some other similar project, it would have appreciated to Rs.26,95,771/-.”
Case Title: Kunal Vashisht Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. & Others
Case Number: Complaint No. 2804-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 90
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has dismissed a complaint seeking additional compensation for delay in handing over possession of a commercial unit, holding that the allottee had already been granted relief for the delay through an earlier order.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed:
“When complainant has 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."
Karnataka RERA
Karnataka RERA Directs Mantri Developers To Register Flat, Grant Homebuyer Possession Within 60 Days
Case Title: Rita Kantilal Ruparelia v. Mantri Developers Private Limited
Case Number: Complaint No. 001244/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KR) 89
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on May 5 directed Mantri Developers to execute the registered sale deed in favour of a homebuyer and hand over possession of a flat in accordance with the Agreement for Sale.
A Bench comprising Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy allowed the complaint and held that the developer must complete registration and conveyance without further delay. It observed:
“The purport and object of RERA Act is to develop and promote Real Estate Sector and at the same time to safe guard the interest of purchasers. The Act gives protection to homebuyer and enhanced transparency and Accountability in Real Estate transactions.”
Tamil Nadu RERA
RERA Act Contains No Provision To Appoint Receiver For Sale Of Unsold Flats: Tamil Nadu RERA
Case Title: Tvl. G. Sathya & 110 Others v. Ozone Projects Private Limited
Case Number: I.A. No. 50 of 2022 in C. Nos. 3 to 27, 37 to 60, 70 to 96, 103 to 127, 146 to 152, 201 & 268 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 91
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has dismissed an application filed by more than 100 homebuyers of Ozone Projects Private Limited's "Metrozone" project seeking appointment of a receiver to effectuate the sale of unsold flats.
The Authority, however, directed the developer to file a status report on construction in Phase IV, an encumbrance certificate for the unsold inventory and an updated quarterly progress report.
The order was passed on May 25 by a coram comprising Chairperson Thiru Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy while dealing with an interlocutory application filed by Tvl. G. Sathya and 110 others in a batch of pending complaints concerning the project.
“Upon perusal of the documents and hearing both the parties, the Authority finds no provision under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to appoint a receiver to address the relief sought in the interlocutory application.”,the authority ruled.