LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: November 1 - November 7, 2026
Shivani PS
9 Nov 2026 4:43 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Aditya Niwas Developers and Colonizers v. The State of Bihar & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 35
Sachin Bajla v. Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 639
SSM Nagar Flat Owners Association v. The District Collector, Chengalpattu District & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 340
M/s. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited v. M/s. PNB Techwaves Private Limited & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 339
Kapil Ashokrao Gahukar v. Godrej Skyline Developers Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 159
Grammy Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Propmart Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 162
Suresh Rawat and Another v. Emaar India Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 158
Neeraj Bhatia and Another v. Godrej Properties Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 157
Venkata Subbamma @ Gangaraju Saraswathi & Others v. Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others, 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 84
Adani Goodhomes Private Limited v. Mathurabai Dhanawat and Others, 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 86
Amit Gharkul Builders LLP v. Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 87
Sharan Pal Singh & Ors. v. Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 88
Godrej Greenview Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Kamal Kishore Prasad Sinha & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 82
Sumit Agarwal v. Air Force Naval Housing Board, 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 85
Chirag Arora v. R-Tech Infra Capital Galleria LLP & Ors.; Sunder Shyam Arora v. R-Tech Infra Capital Galleria LLP & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 83
HIGH COURTS
Patna High Court
Case Title Aditya Niwas Developers and Colonizers v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5406 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 35
The Patna High Court has held that Bihar RERA cannot insist on documents beyond those prescribed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Bihar RERA Rules, 2017, while processing a project registration application.
It also ruled that a residential project stood deemed registered after the Authority failed to decide the application within the statutory 30-day period.
Justice Ajit Kumar observed that allowing RERA to demand documents not prescribed by law would expand its powers beyond the limits set by the legislature.
"Even if this Court were to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the Respondent-RERA and permit the Authority to demand documents which are not prescribed under Section 4 of the Act, 2016 read with Rule 3 of the Bihar Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, it would amount to enlarging the powers of the Authority beyond the legislative scope.", the court ruled.
Bombay High Court
Case Title Sachin Bajla v. Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number Second Appeal No. 534 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 639
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the 10% cap under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, on the advance a developer can accept from a homebuyer before executing a registered agreement for sale does not restrict a Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's power to direct the buyer to deposit a higher amount as a condition for interim protection.
A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that the tribunal's powers to balance competing interests cannot be curtailed by a provision governing how much money a developer can accept from a homebuyer.
"The wide powers conferred upon the REAT under Sections 44(3) and 53 of RERA cannot be circumscribed by the restriction imposed under Section 13 on a promoter from accepting any amount beyond the prescribed limit as advance payment or application fee. Imposing such a restriction on the powers of the REAT would amount to rewriting the statute. Such restriction would also provide an undue advantage to an allottee who has paid an insignificant amount to the promoter, enabling such allottee to entangle the flat in a protracted and endless litigation" the court observed.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Directs Collector To Recover TNRERA Penalty From SSM Builders Within 3 Weeks
Case Title SSM Nagar Flat Owners Association v. The District Collector, Chengalpattu District & Ors.
Case Number W.P. No. 41929 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 340
The Madras High Court has directed the Chengalpattu District Collector to enforce a recovery warrant issued by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) against SSM Builders and Promoters over an unfinished residential-cum-commercial project comprising about 2,952 flats and 135 commercial units in Chennai.
Allowing a petition filed by the SSM Nagar Flat Owners Association, a Single Bench of Justice P.T. Asha directed the Collector to recover the penalty imposed on the builder as arrears of land revenue within three weeks.
The court noted that TNRERA had forwarded the recovery warrant in May 2024, but the Collector had taken no steps to initiate recovery proceedings.
“In the light of the above order of the 2nd respondent, a mandamus is issued to the 1st respondent to forthwith execute the recovery orders / warrant issued by the 2nd respondent and recover the sums directed in the aforesaid order from the 3rd respondent as arrears of land revenue under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the court directed.
Case Title M/s. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited v. M/s. PNB Techwaves Private Limited & Others
Case Number CRP No. 5206 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 339
The Madras High Court has held that an agreement to purchase an apartment cannot be treated as a commercial transaction merely because the buyer had earlier agreed to develop the same property. It held that the buyer qualified as an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
Justice P.B. Balaji observed, “A careful consideration of the above clearly bring the petitioner within the definition of 'allottee', under Section 2 of RERA, I am unable to see how the agreement of sale for undivided share and the construction agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents/land owners, who had taken upon the task of development of the property upon themselves to be termed as a commercial transaction.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title Kapil Ashokrao Gahukar v. Godrej Skyline Developers Limited
Case Number CC12504235
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 159
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that a builder cannot rely on a subsequent extension of a project's completion date to defeat a homebuyer's right to withdraw from the project when the withdrawal request was made before the extension was granted.
A single-member bench of Member Ravindra Deshpande directed Skyline Developers Limited to refund the amount received from a homebuyer for its Godrej Forest Grove project in Pune, along with interest.
The Authority observed, “Such subsequent extension cannot retrospectively defeat the right already exercised by the Complainant.”
Haryana RERA
Case Title Grammy Communications Pvt Ltd versus KS Propmart Pvt Ltd
Case Number Complaint No. 3129 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 162
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has held that a promoter who accepts more than 10% of a property's cost without first executing a registered agreement for sale violates the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and is liable to pay delay interest.
Chairman Arun Kumar directed KS Propmart Private Limited to execute a registered agreement for sale with a commercial unit buyer within 60 days. The Authority observed that despite receiving a considerable amount in 2021, the promoter had failed to execute a written agreement for sale
The authority termed this as “violation of the provisions of the Act, and shows its unlawful conduct.”
Case Title Suresh Rawat and Another vs Emaar India Limited
Case Number Complaint No 775 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 158
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority's Adjudicating Officer has dismissed a homebuyers' compensation claim, holding that allottees who choose to remain in a project cannot claim separate compensation for possession delay after already receiving interest for the same delay.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed that an allottee who does not withdraw from a project is entitled to interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over.
"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.” the authority ruled.
Case Title Neeraj Bhatia and Another v Godrej Properties Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 3893 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 157
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) recently held that a builder cannot claim a Covid-19-related extension of the possession deadline when the homebuyers booked the flat after the pandemic had begun. The agreement for sale was also executed during the pandemic.
Member Phool Singh Saini directed Godrej Properties Limited to pay interest for delayed possession to two homebuyers in its Godrej Meridien-I project in Sector 106, Gurugram. The Authority observed:
“...it is well settled principle that a person cannot take benefit of his own wrong.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Telengana REAT
RERA Registration Disputes Must First Be Raised Before Authority, Not REAT: Telengana REAT
Case Title venkata Subbamma @ Gangaraju Saraswathi & Others v. Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others
Case Number T.A. No. 68 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 84
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that parties must first approach the Regulatory Authority over project registration disputes, as the Tribunal's jurisdiction is purely derivative and limited to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the Authority's orders.
By a 2:1 majority, it dismissed an appeal by seven family members claiming ancestral property rights, seeking cancellation of the RERA registration granted to League Spaces LLP's Riverscape project in Hyderabad over alleged suppression of pending ownership and partition disputes.
The majority, comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar, observed:
“A party cannot invoke the appellate mechanism directly to adjudicate a fresh dispute or ask for cancellation of a certificate that the Authority has not yet reviewed. The Tribunal's powers are confined to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of orders passed under the Regulatory Authority. Further, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is purely derivative.”
Maharashtra REAT
Adani Not Ten BKC Promoter Merely Because It Became Radius's Holding Company: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title Adani Goodhomes Private Limited versus Mathurabai Dhanawat and Others
Case Number M.A. No. 1715/26 (Stay) in Appeal No. AT06/01531/2026 with connected appeals AT06/01532/2026 and AT06/01518/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 86
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has recently held that Adani Goodhomes Private Limited cannot be treated as a promoter of the Ten BKC project in Bandra merely because it became the holding company of Radius Estate & Developers Pvt Ltd following an insolvency resolution plan.
It set aside three Maharashtra RERA orders refusing to delete Adani from complaints filed by allottees of the project.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice S. S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, referring to the resolution plan, observed:
“From the said Clause, the Corporate Debtor i.e. Radius, shall be amalgamated with Adani wholly Owned Subsidiary, and the said resolved entity, along with the DB group shall continue the business of the construction and development of the project as going concern. The resolved entity shall be the promoter of the project under RERA and the resolved entity shall be solely entitled to brand and market the Project as an 'Adani' project in the manner it deems fit and proper, and shall be solely entitled to undertake sales for the Project, and necessary intimations/filing to be made with MahaRERA. This abundantly makes it clear that the appellant being successful resolution applicant, is not the promoter of the project. The revived corporate debtor i.e. Radius, will be amalgamated with Adani's wholly owned subsidiary, which would continue to be the promoter and will be entitled to brand market the project.”
Case Title Amit Gharkul Builders LLP v Honest Shelters Pvt Ltd
Case Number M.A. No. 973 of 2024 (Stay) in Appeal No. AT12500002 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 87
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a change in partners of a limited liability partnership (LLP) does not amount to a transfer of a flat owned by it. It set aside Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd.'s termination of an agreement for sale and directed it to hand over a flat in the Palais Royale project at Worli.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice S. S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed:
“The legislature in its wisdom has given perpetual succession and separate legal entity status to the LLP which is distinct and separate from its partners. The individual partners are not involved in the said purchase transaction in their personal capacities, but the rights of the appellant LLP i.e. "M/s, Amit Gharkul Builders LLP" only are involved. Therefore, the contention of the promoter that change in partners would result in transfer of rights and interests in the said flat in favour of the new partners is not legally sustainable"
Maharashtra REAT Directs Builder To Hand Over Flat After OC Issued But Possession Not Offered
Case Title Sharan Pal Singh & Ors v Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd
Case Number Misc. Application No. 879/26 in Appeal No. AT12500070/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 88
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has directed a builder to hand over possession of a flat to homebuyers after they deposit the outstanding amount, holding that the promoter was duty-bound to hand over possession after the project received its Occupancy Certificate (OC) and the buyers expressed their willingness to pay the balance.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara held that the promoter was duty-bound to hand over possession given the allottees' willingness to pay the outstanding amount.
"Therefore, given the Allottees willingness to fulfil their obligation to pay the balance consideration amount, the Non-Applicant/Promoter is duty bound to hand over possession," the tribunal observed.
Case Title Godrej Greenview Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Kamal Kishore Prasad Sinha & Anr.
Case Number Misc. Application No. 730/2026 (Stay) and M.A. No. 1765/2026 (Withdrawal) in Appeal No. AT06/00613/2026, arising from Complaint No. CC12501553.
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 82
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has refused to allow homebuyers who have already taken possession of their flats to withdraw a developer's statutory deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
It held that payment of home loan EMIs does not, by itself, constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting release of the money.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that the homebuyers had already received possession and had not demonstrated any exceptional financial hardship.
"We are of the view that since the allottees are already have been put in possession of the flat, therefore, the hardship on account of EMIs is immaterial and not a valid ground leading to extraordinary or exceptional situation warranting this Tribunal exercise discretionary powers to release the deposited decretal amounts under 43(5) of RERA to allottees," the tribunal held.
Rajasthan REAT
Case Title Sumit Agarwal v Air Force Naval Housing Board
Case Number Appeal No. 103/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 85
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has rejected a homebuyer's claim for ₹37.13 lakh in rental expenses allegedly incurred due to delayed possession of a Jaipur flat.
It held that he had failed to establish that he would have moved into the Jaipur property but for the delay, or that rent paid for a house in Bangalore was a loss caused by the delay.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma observed that compensation "must be based on proof and not on guesswork."
It also held that awarding rent for a period for which the homebuyer had already received interest would amount to double compensation.
Case Title Chirag Arora v. R-Tech Infra Capital Galleria LLP & Ors.; Sunder Shyam Arora v. R-Tech Infra Capital Galleria LLP & Ors.
Case Number Appeal Nos. 141/2025 and 142/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 83
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has refused to enhance compensation to ₹10 lakh for two commercial shop buyers who alleged that missing escalators, construction deviations and reduced shop visibility had affected the commercial viability of their properties in the Capital Galleria project at Alwar.
Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma held that compensation must reflect the actual loss suffered, any unfair advantage gained by the developer and the repetitive nature of the default.
“Section 72 requires regard to the unfair advantage gained, the loss actually caused, and the repetitive nature of the default. Compensation must rest on proof, not assertion,” it observed.