LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: September 21 - September 27, 2026
Shivani PS
28 Sept 2026 10:30 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
JP Builders and Developers v. Santosh Amarsingh Sandhu, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 532
Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S., 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 72
Seema Devi & Ors. v. Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 140
Sridhar Bagaluri & Anr. v. M/s Janapriya Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 141
Dr. Bhuvanagiri Radha Madhavi & Ors. v. M/s. Anjani Projects & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (AP) 142
Mrs. Shashi Rastogi & Anr. v. M/s S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 143
Rajesh Verma v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA), 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 144
Bombay High Court
Transfer Of Stamp Duty, Registration Amount To Bank Not Proof Of Payment: Bombay High Court
Case Title : JP Builders and Developers v. Santosh Amarsingh Sandhu (with connected appeal)
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 116 of 2025 with Second Appeal No. 603 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 532
The Bombay High Court has recently held that transferring money to a bank account for payment of stamp duty and registration charges does not by itself establish that the charges were actually paid to the concerned authorities.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while setting aside orders of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) and Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) directing JP Builders and Developers to execute a registered agreement for sale with homebuyer Santosh Amarsingh Sandhu.
The court found that Sandhu had transferred ₹4.65 lakh to a Punjab National Bank account from which the statutory challans were to be generated. However, no challan or e-SBTR was generated, and the amount was never credited to the stamp or registration authorities.
“From the documents on record, it becomes difficult to believe that the allottee actually made payment of stamp duty and registration charges. Mere making provision for stamp duty and registration charges and transfer of the amount to the banker does not mean that stamp duty and registration charges were actually paid by the allottee,” Justice Marne observed.
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
TNREAT Upholds ₹2.36 Lakh Refund Against Arun Excello, Reiterates Promoter Cannot Sell Stilt Parking
Case Title : Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.
Case Number : Appeal No. 31 of 2026 and M.A. No. 95 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 72
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT) on 16 September reiterated that a promoter cannot sell or separately charge for a reserved car parking space in the stilt area of a residential building.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu upheld Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's (TNRERA) direction requiring Arun Excello Constructions LLP to refund Rs. 2.36 lakh collected from homebuyer Meenakshi S. towards covered parking in its “Compact Homes – Narmada” project. The Tribunal observed:
“As per the aforesaid judgment, stilt parking space could not be sold as it is not a saleable area and the appellant does not have any right to sell the car parking in the stilt area.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Rajasthan RERA
Rajasthan RERA Says Cancelled Allotment Requires Refund, Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Homebuyers
Case Title : Seema Devi & Ors. v. Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-O-2024-7211
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 140
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 16 September awarded Rs. 1 lakh compensation to homebuyers in the “Surya Residency” project after promoter Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd. retained their Rs. 1.45 lakh booking amount despite cancelling the allotment.
Adjudicating Officer R.S. Kulhari passed the order on a compensation claim by Seema Devi and other homebuyers, directing the promoter to pay Rs. 1 lakh for retaining their booking amount after cancellation of the allotment. He held:
“In case the unit was cancelled, the promoter was supposed to refund the amount after deducting the administrative charges, if any, but no such communication has been made. The respondent has been utilizing the funds after cancellation of the unit. Simultaneously, the complainants were deprived of this amount.”
Telengana RERA
Flat Not Ready For Possession Without Basic Amenities Like Water, Electricity: Telengana RERA
Case Title : Sridhar Bagaluri & Anr. v. M/s Janapriya Projects Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No. 360/2025/TGRERA
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 141
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has ruled that a flat cannot be treated as ready for possession merely because construction is complete or an Occupancy Certificate has been obtained. Basic facilities such as potable water and electricity must also be available.
A bench comprising Member Laxmi Narayana Jannu and Member K. Srinivasa Rao imposed a ₹32.17 lakh penalty on Janapriya Projects Pvt. Ltd. for accepting booking money before registering its “Sitara at Janyapriya Lake Front” project. It also directed the developer to pay 10.70% annual interest for the delay in handing over lawful possession.
Andhra Pradesh RERA
AP RERA Directs Anjani Projects To Hand Over Incomplete Project To Landowners After 12-Year Delay
Case Title : Dr. Bhuvanagiri Radha Madhavi & Ors. v. M/s. Anjani Projects & Ors.
Case Number : E.P. Nos. 47/2026 to 61/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (AP) 142
The Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (AP RERA) on 1 September directed Anjani Projects to hand over an incomplete real estate project to the landowners within 15 days, after finding that the developer had failed to complete the project for nearly 12 years.
A Bench comprising Members E. Rajasekhara Reddy and A. Jagannadha Rao passed the common order in execution petitions filed by the landowners against Anjani Projects, represented by its proprietor Kanupuru Seshavardhana Reddy, and Ponnavolu Prathima Reddy. The Authority held:
“The Development Agreement does not contain any provision entitling the respondents to insist upon execution of fresh or supplementary agreements after expiry of the contractual period as a condition precedent for completion of the project. Having voluntarily undertaken the contractual obligation to complete the project within the stipulated period, the respondents cannot indefinitely postpone completion of the project and thereafter impose fresh contractual conditions upon the complainants.”
Haryana RERA
No Fixed Limitation For Compensation Claims, Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time: RERA Gurugram
Case Title : Shashi Rastogi & Anr. v. M/s S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 2934 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 143
The Gurugram Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) on 11 September held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not prescribe a specific time limit for an allottee to file a complaint seeking compensation, and whether a complaint was filed within a reasonable time must be determined in light of public policy.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held this while awarding Rs. 11.24 lakh compensation to Shashi Rastogi and Colonel Rajendra Kumar Rastogi (Retd.) against SS Group Pvt. Ltd. for loss of property appreciation, mental agony and litigation expenses arising from the developer's failure to deliver a flat in its “The Leaf” project at Sector 84-85, Gurugram. He held:
“I find weight in aforesaid submissions of the complainant. No time period has been prescribed by Act of 2016 within which a complaint seeking compensation can be filed. Public policy requires that a case, (complaint or civil) suit should be filed within reasonable time.”
Punjab RERA
Case Title: Rajesh Verma v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA)
Case Number : GC No. 0512/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 144
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that where both an allottee and a developer breach their respective obligations, neither side would ordinarily be entitled to specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.
The Authority, headed by Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal, directed the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) to refund ₹21 lakh deposited by the allottee with interest. The total amount payable was ₹43.68 lakh as on August 31, 2026.
Finding defaults on both sides, the Authority observed:
“There is foundational principle of equity—that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, that equity aids the vigilant and that equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. Here, both the allottee defaults in payments and the developer faults in timely handover. It is breach of vital terms or failed to perform on time and neither side typically qualifies for an order of specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.”