LiveLawBiz RERA Weekly Digest: March 23 - March 28, 2026
Shivani PS
29 March 2026 6:07 PM IST
Nominal Index
M/s Galaxy Mall Private Limited v. Bharat Nagjibhai Ramani & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (GJ) 18
Tulip Infratech Private Limited v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 19
M/s Park Town Complex Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar, 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 17
Harjeet Kaur Dhillon & Anr. v. M/s Imperia Structures Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 57
Mugundhine v. M/s Cybercity Mangadu Project Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 56
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS
Gujarat REAT
Case Title : M/s Galaxy Mall Private Limited v. Bharat Nagjibhai Ramani & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. 110 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (GJ) 18
The Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has quashed an order of the Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), holding that even though the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is consumer-centric, the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint relating to a project phase that had obtained a completion certificate before the Act came into force on May 1, 2017.
The tribunal observed that although the provisions of the Act are meant to protect homebuyers, they cannot be applied to a phase of a project that stood completed before the law came into force. “It is no doubt true that the provisions of the RERA Act are 'consumer centric', however, as the completion certificate for Block 'H' was granted by the competent authority i.e. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation before the commencement of the Act, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to that phase of the real estate project,” the tribunal held.
Haryana REAT
Unregistered FAR Not By Itself A RERA Violation Without Sale Or Marketing: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Tulip Infratech Private Limited v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram
Case Number : Appeal No. 124 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 19
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) held that the mere existence of unutilised or unregistered FAR in a real estate project does not, by itself, constitute a violation of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in the absence of any evidence of actual marketing, sale, or booking. It reduced a late fee imposed on Tulip Infratech Private Limited from Rs 1,75,87,714 to Rs 75,00,000 as excessive and disproportionate.
“The erstwhile promoter, Vipul Ltd., had obtained registration for specific phases, namely Aarohan Phase-I and Aarohan Commercial Tower, and there is no cogent material to demonstrate that any unregistered portion of the project was actively marketed or sold in contravention of Section 3. Mere existence of unutilised or unregistered FAR, in the absence of any act of promotion or sale, does not ipso facto constitute a violation", it observed.
UP REAT
Case Title : M/s Park Town Complex Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar
Case Number : Appeal No.617 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 17
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) at Lucknow has held that while the right of a party to file a reply may be closed if they fail to do so despite sufficient opportunities, such a right must be expressly and formally closed by the authority before proceeding to decide the case on merits. A coram of Judicial Member Sanjai Khare and Technical Member Devindar Singh Chaudhry set aside a refund order of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and observed that:
“The basic principle of Natural Justice is that a lis should be decided on merits after ensuring that sufficient opportunities have been given to parties for filing their pleadings and documents. If opposite party is not filing reply/documents intentionally and deliberately even after sufficient opportunities, opposite parties right to file reply can be closed and thereafter arguments should be heard and final order should be passed."
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Haryana RERA
Haryana RERA Orders Imperia Structures To Pay ₹55 Lakh For Loss Of Property Appreciation
Case Title : Harjeet Kaur Dhillon & Anr. v. M/s Imperia Structures Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 3610 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 57
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on 16 March directed Imperia Structures Ltd. to pay Rs. 55 Lakhs to a homebuyer as compensation for loss of appreciation in property value due to delayed possession of the residential unit. A Bench comprising Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar (AO) observed that the builder had received a substantial portion of the sale consideration but failed to deliver possession within the agreed time. Such a delay, it said, resulted in financial loss to the homebuyer and justified grant of compensation in addition to refund already ordered earlier.
It observed: “……that based on available market trends, flats in Sector 37-C, Gurugram witnessed significant appreciation between 2017, being the due date of possession and 2023, largely driven by the development of the Dwarka Expressway. The Authority noted that estimates indicate an increase of around 79.5% over five years, reflecting a sharp rise in property values during this period.”
UP RERA
UP RERA To Hear Complaints In Unregistered Projects After Amending General Regulations, 2019
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has amended its General Regulations, 2019, enabling the Authority to hear complaints filed by allottees in unregistered projects and prescribing limits on fees charged by promoters for the transfer of allotments. The amendment, notified on March 24, 2026, has come into force upon its publication on the official website of the Authority.
The amendment modifies Regulation 24 and Regulation 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019, and deletes amendments made to Regulation 38 by the 6th round of amendments. Regulation 24, which deals with adjudication proceedings before the Authority, has been amended by inserting sub-paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) to address complaints relating to projects that are not registered under the Act.
Under the newly inserted provision, "complaints by the allottees of the un-registered projects shall be heard by the Benches of the Authority as per the procedure laid down in this behalf and admissible relief, if any, granted after deciding the question of exemption of the concerned project from registration under the Act as provided under Section-3 read with rule-2(1)(h) of the Rules.”
Tamil Nadu RERA
Case Title : Mugundhine v. M/s Cybercity Mangadu Project Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : CCP No. 62 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 56
In a delayed possession dispute involving a housing project in Chennai, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that the marketing entity is not a “promoter” and cannot be held liable, while also declining to fasten liability on the landowner and directing the developer to pay compensation. Dismissing the complaint against Anugraha Real Value Services (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. and Shriram Properties Ltd., the Authority held that neither entity had any privity of contract with the complainant.
Clarifying the scope of liability, the authority observed, “it does not come under the definition of promoter as per Section 2(zk). It did not construct or convert or sell any of the building or apartments. Similarly it did not develop any land into a project for the purpose of selling to other persons. It had acted as a Marketing Person for the project of the 1st Respondent. Exhibits A1 & A2 do not expose this 3rd Respondent as a party to the agreements. There is no other privity of contract in between the complainant and the 3rd Respondent and so it is not liable to pay for any reliefs to the complainant.”