LiveLawBiz RERA Monthly Digest: February 2026

Supreme Court Allows Himachal Government To Shift RERA Office From Shimla To Dharamshala, Stays HC Order

The Supreme Court permitted the Himachal Pradesh Government to shift the office of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) from Shimla to Dharamshala, staying the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order that had restrained the move. A Bench comprising the Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that “operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”

The Court further ordered, “the State is permitted to shift the office of RERA to the place of its choice however, this shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition pending at the High Court.”

The court also directed that, to ensure that persons affected by RERA orders are not inconvenienced, “the appellate powers may be shifted from the Principal District Judge, Shimla to the Principal District Judge, Dharamshala.”

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing ₹2.27 Crore RERA Penalty

The Supreme Court has recently set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a Rs. 2.27 crore penalty imposed by the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MPRERA) on an industrial project developer for non-registration of its project.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that “the approach adopted by the High Court is impermissible in law.”

The court noted that the High Court was exercising judicial review in the context of entertaining a challenge to an order of the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MPRAT), which had dismissed the developer's appeal for failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the statute.

“There was no occasion for the High Court to set aside the penalty which was imposed in this context,” the Bench observed.

High Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court

RERA Cannot Examine Municipal Completion Certificates Issued Before It Came Into Force: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority has no jurisdiction to examine or question completion certificates issued by municipal authorities before May 1, 2017, when the substantive provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, came into force.

"Prima facie, a real estate project which has been certified as complete under the applicable municipal law prior to the enforcement of the RERA regime in the State of Chhattisgarh would fall outside the regulatory fold of RERA”, the court said.

The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, which set aside an order of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that had refused to dismiss an appeal at the threshold despite objections on jurisdiction.Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that “At the threshold, and for the limited purpose of determining the maintainability of proceedings under the RERA Act, the Authority does not possess jurisdiction to scrutinize, test, or pronounce upon the issuance, validity, correctness, or legal effect of Completion Certificates granted under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, read with the Rules of 2013, so long as such certificates remain in force and have not been declared illegal by a competent forum.”

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court Invokes Writ Jurisdiction In RERA Matter To Enable Consideration Of Developer's Objections

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the existence of an appellate remedy does not prevent it from exercising writ jurisdiction in a real estate dispute where due opportunity has not been afforded to one of the parties.

The court set aside a Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing Embassy One Developers Pvt Ltd to pay over Rs. 4.24 crore as delay interest without considering its objections.

Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad said, “An alternative remedy need not always be a reason for this Court to refuse the exercise of the discretion and plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” The court added, “for complete adjudication with due opportunity, the Authorities must consider Statement of Objections filed.”

It further observed that if liability to pay interest is imposed, “it must be with a reasonable opportunity lest there be reason for multiplicity in the proceedings”

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Technical Member Mandatory: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside REAT Order Passed By Two-Member Bench

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal after finding that it was passed by an improperly constituted Bench. The court held that the Tribunal decided the case without the participation of a Technical Member, a requirement mandated by law. Such an order, it said, cannot stand. “As per the provisions of Section 45 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal must consist of the Chairman and two members, one of whom must be a Technical Member,” the Court held. The impugned order, it added, “cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”

On examining the record, it found that the impugned order was passed only by the Chairman and a Judicial Member, with no Technical Member involved. Relying on G.S. Enterprises v. Yogesh Agrawal, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 45 is mandatory. “The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The order impugned, thus, stands set aside,” it held.

Real Estate Appellate Tribunals

Haryana REAT

Refund Of Amount Paid By Homebuyer With Interest Did Not Bar Separate Compensation Plea: Haryana REAT

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has dismissed an appeal by Pareena Infrastructure Private Limited and upheld a compensation award in favour of a homebuyer, holding that a refund with interest does not bar a separate claim for compensation.

A bench comprising member Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan held that compensation for financial loss and mental agony under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is an independent remedy.

“Thus, the present proceedings arise under a distinct statutory provision concerning compensation and are independent in nature. The claim for compensation is therefore not hit by the principle of res judicata, as it is not grounded on the same cause of action but represents a separate relief that the Act itself recognizes under Section 71", it held.

Misleading Averments Before Tribunal Cannot Go Unchecked: Haryana REAT Dismisses Alpha Corp Appeal

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has warned that misleading averments and false affidavits filed before it “cannot be permitted to go unchecked” and would ordinarily invite punitive action.

The caution came while dismissing an appeal filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited, after the tribunal found that the developer had made “wholly incorrect and misleading” statements in an affidavit concerning the status of a completion certificate for one of its projects.

A bench comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta, Judicial Member Virender Parshad, and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan said it had noticed that appeals were increasingly being filed with incorrect statements, often supported by affidavits sworn despite awareness of the true factual position.

“The person swearing a false affidavit must be held accountable for attempting to mislead a quasi-judicial forum,” the tribunal observed.

Forfeiture Of ₹25 Lakh For Two-Day Delay In Submitting Fire Scheme Approval Is Disproportionate: Haryana REAT

Terming the forfeiture of Rs. 25 lakh for a two-day delay in submitting fire scheme approval “grossly disproportionate,” the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority against developer M/s TARC Limited.

A coram comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan observed, “Forfeiture of 25 lakhs for such a minor infraction, especially when other compliances were impeccable and no homebuyer prejudice is shown, is grossly disproportionate. Penalties under RERA must be just and equitable, not punitive for technicalities. Thus, equity demands setting aside the forfeiture."

"Penalties under RERA must be just and equitable, not punitive for technicalities", the tribunal held.

Rajasthan REAT

Rajasthan REAT Refuses To Condone 194-Day Delay, Says Rera Overrides General Limitation Principles

The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone a 194-day delay by a developer in filing an appeal, holding that no “sufficient cause” was shown. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The tribunal observed that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is a “special law” that overrides “general law.” It said the Supreme Court's ruling in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013), which calls for a liberal approach in such applications, did not help the developer in the present case.

The Bench of Chairman Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma said allowing such delay, “and that too without any justifiable reason, would defeat the very purpose of the RERA Act, 2016, which has been framed to provide substantial justice to the allottees within a reasonable time.”

Odisha REAT

Location Of Project Immaterial For RERA Applicability, Odisha REAT Dismisses Developer's Appeal

The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has reaffirmed that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 applies to ongoing housing projects regardless of whether they are located within municipal limits or in gram panchayat areas.

The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by Shree Infra Properties Pvt. Ltd.

The Bench of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., observed:

“The plea raised for the first time in the appeal however shows the appellant's misconception of law as the applicability of the RERA Act is no way relevant to the location of the real estate project. Section 3 of the Act and the Newtech Promoters case law make it clear that, real estate projects, that are ongoing on the date of commencement of the RERA Act and for which completion certificate has not been issued will come under its purview. The place where a real estate project is developed is immaterial.

Maharashtra REAT

Society Members Can File RERA Complaint Against Developer Despite Not Being Allottees: MahaREAT

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has held that members of a cooperative housing society forming part of a larger layout can maintain a complaint against a developer even if they are not allottees in the newly registered phase of the project.

A Bench comprising Members Shri Shriram R. Jagtap and Dr. Rajagopal Devara set aside the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) order, which had dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, and held that such members fall within the expression “any aggrieved person” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The Tribunal recorded:

“Section 31 makes it clear that any aggrieved person may file complaint with the Authority for violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA Act. The appellants/complainants being members of the housing society within the larger layout developed in different phases are aggrieved persons and therefore the complaint is maintainable.”

Mreat Stays MahaRERA Recall Order After Finding Two Digitally Signed Versions Of Same Order

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) recently stayed a recall order passed by the MahaRERA Chairperson, holding that inherent powers cannot be exercised where the statute provides an express appellate remedy. The Tribunal also raised serious concerns over the existence of two digitally signed versions of the same order in a single complaint.

A Tribunal comprising Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde and Member Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande passed the interim order in an appeal filed by homebuyers Pramod Ashtekar and another, staying the recall order and observing that the matter warranted investigation. The Bench held: “integrity of judicial proceedings is of paramount importance to ensure trust of the litigants and public on the judicial forums".

Real Estate Regulatory Authorities

Telangana REARA

Telengana RERA Penalises Ramanuja Temple County ₹32.12 Lakh For Selling Unregistered Project

Relying on findings recorded in an earlier adjudication that the developer's conduct was not an isolated lapse but a “continuing modus operandi” undermining transparency and consumer protection, the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs 32.12 lakh on Ramanuja Temple County Pvt. Ltd. for advertising, marketing, and selling units without registering its project.

In a February 3, 2026, penalty order, a coram comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS, and Members K. Srinivasa Rao, Laxmi Narayana Jannu held the developer liable after earlier finding that it had sold units in an unregistered project. The finding was recorded in an adjudication order dated November 3, 2025, relating to a project at Saidapur village near Yadagirigutta.

While examining the complaint, the Authority noted that the developer had collected substantial amounts and had initially made monthly payments under a rental guarantee scheme, even though the project was never registered with the regulator.

Having already held in its earlier order that such conduct amounted to a “clear and willful contravention” of Section 3(1) of the Act, the Authority, in its February 3, 2026 order, exercised its powers under Section 38 and directed the developer to deposit a penalty of Rs 32,12,580 with the TGRERA Fund within 30 days.

Punjab RERA

Punjab RERA Directs Omaxe, Puda To Refund Entire Principal Amount After Over 12 Years' Delay In Possession

Holding that the delay “stands admitted and cannot be justified,” the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed Omaxe Limited and the Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority to refund the entire principal amount received for a flat after more than 12 years of delay in possession. Interest will be payable from the date the subsequent purchaser was recognised as an allottee.

In its order dated 29.01.2026, Member Runvir Vashisht held, “The plea that RERA provisions are inapplicable is not tenable because the cause of action continues until possession is delivered or refund is made. Hence, the jurisdiction of this Authority is attracted.”

The Authority rejected the defence of force majeure and pending litigation. It observed, “The plea of force majeure and pendency of litigation does not absolve the respondents of their liability, particularly when the project stands unregistered and development work has remained incomplete for more than a decade.” It further noted that the delay “stands admitted and cannot be justified.”

Maharashtra RERA

'Blatant Disregard Of Law': MahaRERA Penalises Keyana Estate Over Delay In Mumbai Project

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakh on developer Keyana Estate LLP for delaying possession of flats in its Kalpataru Radiance D project in Mumbai and for raising technical objections to the maintainability of homebuyers' complaints. The Authority, led by Chairperson Manoj Saunik, held the developer liable under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and criticised it for exhibiting what it described as a “blatant disregard to the law and fair business practices".

Emphasising that the provision governing delayed possession is absolute, the Authority observed that “such acts if condoned on grounds of legal technicalities will defeat the noble objective of this beneficial legislation”.

Uttar Pradesh RERA

Circular

UP RERA Mandates Training For Real Estate Agents, Requires Certificate For Registration And Renewal

In a recent regulatory order dated 5 January 2026, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) introduced a revised and mandatory Training & Certification framework for Real Estate Agents. The order makes completion of training and certification a pre-condition for the submission and processing of fresh registration, renewal, or amendment applications for real estate agents. It clarifies that no individual, partnership firm, LLP, company, or society can seek registration or modify its status without first completing the prescribed training programme and passing the competency examination.

The new framework has been issued under Regulation 54 of the UP RERA (General) Regulations, 2019 (7th Amendment) and aims to bridge the gap between regulatory requirements and actual practices of agents on the ground. It supersedes the earlier training guidelines issued by the Authority on 10 October 2025.

The programme is structured as a four-day non-residential training, concluding with a mandatory examination on the final day. Further, the requirement applies to individual agents as well as partnerships, LLPs, companies, and societies registered as agents.

The order makes it mandatory for previously registered agents to complete training and obtain certification by 31 December 2026.

Delhi RERA

Delhi RERA Restrains Nbcc From Coercive Action Against Rajeshwari Realty In Saket Project Dispute

With NBCC's appeal pending before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) and no stay in operation, the Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on February 11, 2026 restrained National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited from initiating coercive recovery steps against Rajeshwari Realty Pvt. Ltd. over electricity and maintenance dues.

“Keeping in view the order passed by this Authority, and the fact that the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble REAT, we direct the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Applicant till next date of hearing,” the Bench comprising Chairperson Anand Kumar and Member Devesh Singh ordered.

Haryana RERA

Haryana RERA Orders Developers To Pay ₹40.16 Lakh To Homebuyers For Lost Property Appreciation

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has recently directed Microtek Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. and Deepanshu Projects Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs 40.16 lakh to homebuyers towards loss of property appreciation, even though the buyers had earlier been granted refund of the deposited amount.

Referring to Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Officer held that when the promoter fails to hand over possession as per the agreement for sale, “apart from refund of the amount, allottees-complainants are entitled for compensation.”

The officer referred to the residential real estate market in Gurugram. The order records that average housing prices surged by nearly 160% between January 1, 2017 and October 29, 2024.

It observed, "It can be presumed that amount paid by complainants to the respondents in purchase of subject unit, if was invested in some other similar project, it would have at-least doubled till the date of order of refund.”

Tamil Nadu RERA

Tamil Nadu RERA Orders Olympia Tech Park, Chennai To Hand Over Sky Villa To Complainant By February 28

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently directed Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. to complete construction and hand over Sky Villa No. 3-A in its “Aquamarine Olympia Opaline” project to the complainant/homebuyer on or before February 28, 2026.

The authority recorded that “In a nutshell, the complainant neither has the possession nor the ownership of the Sky villa No.3-A.” It held that “the delay in handing over the Sky Villa within the specified time frame is attributable to the 1st Respondent.”

It further held that the association's demand of Rs. 32,98,239.78 towards maintenance charges was “not maintainable.”

Telangana RERA

Telangana RERA Directs K Raheja Corp To Transfer Corpus To Maintenance Society, Complete Safety Works At Raheja Vistas

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has recently directed K Raheja Corp Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. to reconcile and transfer corpus and maintenance funds to the registered maintenance society of the Raheja Vistas project in Hyderabad, complete pending safety infrastructure, and hand over key project documents.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu.

The Authority held that phase-wise RERA registration is permissible where a project is genuinely approved and executed in phases, and declined the request to treat the entire development as a single registration.

Builder Cannot Impose Previous Allottees's Late Payment Charges On Subsequent Buyer: Telangana RERA

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently directed Pacifica Construction Pvt. Ltd. to remove late payment charges linked to previous allottees before registering two flats. It held that buyers cannot be made liable for penalties that do not arise from their own defaults.

A coram of Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu, observed that “liability for late payment charges must necessarily flow either from a contractual obligation expressly undertaken by an allottee or from defaults attributable to that allottee's own conduct.”The Authority upheld the revised maintenance charge of Rs 3.6 per sq. ft., noting escalation in costs over time. However, it directed the developer to convene a General Meeting of the Association of Allottees within 30 days to determine future maintenance charges collectively.

It clarified that claims for compensation fall within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the Act. GST-related disputes must be raised before the competent GST authorities.

Rajasthan RERA

Rajasthan RERA Restrains Secured Creditor From Acting Against Homebuyers Who Bought Flats Before Project Mortgage

Case Title : Suo Moto v. GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently restrained Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. from initiating or continuing recovery proceedings against homebuyers who acquired their flats before the Avalon Royal Park project was mortgaged.

The authority refused to declare the mortgage deed dated February 14, 2018 as void. It held that adjudication on the legality or validity of a registered mortgage falls outside its jurisdiction.

However, Chairperson Veenu Gupta observed that statutory protections under the RERA Act cannot be ignored. “This Authority cannot be a mute spectator where the statutory rights of allottees, expressly protected under the RERA Act, are threatened,” the order said.

It directed that the secured creditor “shall not initiate or continue any coercive action, recovery proceedings, or enforcement of security interest” against allottees who acquired rights prior to 14.02.2018.