RERA Cases Weekly Round-Up: 19th January-25th January 2026
Shivani PS
29 Jan 2026 10:24 AM IST
Nominal Index
Ar Landcraft Llp Ltd. Liability Partnership Thru. its Auth. Sign. v. U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Thru. its Registrar Lko. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 8
Bhawna Narang v. Vatika Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 16
Lko. Development Authority Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Rohit Singh v. Sushma Shukla, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 7
Mrs. Rizvana Begum & Anr. v. M/s Pacifica Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (19)
Royal Omkar Nests Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 2
Sri Abhishek Singh & Ors. v. M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 18
Teena Goel v. Chief Administrator, PUDA & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 17
High Courts:
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Lko. Development Authority Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Rohit Singh v. Sushma Shukla
Case Number : RERA Appeal Defective No. - 125 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 7
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that a private settlement between a promoter and a homebuyer cannot override mandatory statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Dismissing an appeal filed by the Lucknow Development Authority, a single bench of Justice Prashant Kumar upheld an order directing payment of statutory interest to a buyer for delay in handing over possession of a flat.
The court said the law leaves no scope for promoters to avoid this obligation through private agreements. It underlined that an allottee who continues with a delayed project is entitled to interest till possession is handed over, and that the duty to pay such interest is cast on the promoter by statute. “The legislative mandate insofar such allottees is that they are entitled to interest on their deposit till the handing over of possession of the unit. A mandatory statutory obligation is cast upon the promoter to pay the interest to such allottees,” the court observed.
Case Title : Ar Landcraft Llp Ltd. Liability Partnership Thru. its Auth. Sign. v. U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Thru. its Registrar Lko. & Ors.
Case Number : Matters Under Article 227 No. - 71 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 8
The Allahabad High Court set aside a judgment of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, holding that a case heard by one bench cannot be decided by another bench if one of its members did not hear the arguments. The court said such a judgment is unsustainable in law and goes against fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that the bench that hears a matter must also decide it. It added that views of members who heard the case cannot be taken after a judgment has already been signed and delivered by another bench.
"A judgment in a matter heard by a three member Bench cannot be authored and delivered by a two member Bench, one member of which had not heard the submissions in the matter. Views of the other members. who had heard submissions in the matter cannot be taken after the judgment has been signed and delivered by another Bench", it said. Further, it stated that “delivery of judgment by a member who has not heard submissions in the appeals is not a mere irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal which does not affect the merits of the case, rather such a judgment is nullity in the eyes of law, as it has been passed in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, which require the Bench hearing a matter to decide the same", it said.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Case Title : Royal Omkar Nests Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 3765/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 2
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside a status quo order passed against a real estate developer by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, which was functioning as the interim Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Justice Rahul Bharti held that once a tribunal acknowledges that it lacks jurisdiction, it cannot issue or continue any interim or supplementary directions. Any such directions, the court said, are “nugatory in the eyes of law”.
Justice Bharti held that the status quo direction was “nothing but nugatory in the eyes of law”. The court reiterated that Section 43(3) of the RERA Act mandates that an appellate tribunal must consist of both a judicial member and a technical or administrative member. Accordingly, the High Court partially allowed the writ petition and set aside the status quo direction relating to the project's common areas. However, it did not interfere with the Tribunal's decision granting liberty to the allottees to file a fresh appeal before a properly constituted bench.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities:
Haryana RERA
Haryana RERA Orders Vatika Ltd to Pay ₹38 lakh Compensation Over Refund For Delayed Gurugram Project
Case Title : Bhawna Narang v. Vatika Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 3434-2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 16
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) directed developer Vatika Limited to pay Rs 38 lakh as compensation to a homebuyer for loss of property appreciation caused by prolonged delay in completing a housing project in Gurugram. Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar said the developer gained unfairly by holding the buyer's money without building the project. Referring to the rise in developmental activities in that area, he observed that “money paid by the complainant to the respondent would have at least doubled till now, if invested with some other similar project.”
Taking note of development activity and rising prices in the area, the Adjudicating Officer was of the opinion that the buyer had suffered a clear financial loss. The Authority awarded Rs 38 lakh as compensation for loss of prospective appreciation, Rs 1 lakh for mental harassment, and Rs 50,000 as litigation costs. The amounts are to be paid with 10.85% interest from the date of the order until realisation.
Telangana RERA
Homebuyers Complete Stalled Hyderabad Housing Project After TG RERA Revokes Developer's Registration
Case Title : Sri Abhishek Singh & Ors. v. M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 1269 of 2023 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 18
Homebuyers of a stalled Hyderabad housing project have completed construction after the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) stepped in, revoked the developer's registration, and enabled the residents' association to take over the project under the RERA law. Recording the completion of the “Jaya Platinum” project at Bowrampet, TG RERA held that revocation of registration “does not leave the allottees remediless.” It said regulatory intervention had become inevitable to protect the collective interests of homebuyers. The order was passed by a bench comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), and members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao.TG RERA also passed directions against the developer, asking it to execute and register conveyance deeds in favour of the homebuyers for those units that had earlier been mortgaged.
Telangana RERA Condemns Practice Of Developers Changing Possession Dates After Booking
Case Title : Mrs. Rizvana Begum & Anr. v. M/s Pacifica Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMPLAINT NO. 58/2025/TGRERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (19)
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has come down hard on the practice of developers changing possession dates after buyers have already paid substantial amounts. Calling such agreements “ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable,” the Authority said homebuyers are often left with no real choice but to accept altered timelines inserted later in sale agreements. A bench led by Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, with members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu, said this imbalance of power is precisely what the real estate law was meant to address.
“When an allottee has already paid a substantial portion of the consideration at the stage of booking or allotment, the allottee is left with no real choice but to accept the new possession timeline inserted in the agreement for sales. Such agreements are ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable, and this Authority condemns such practices. It is precisely to curb such asymmetry of power, lack of transparency, and exploitation of consumers that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was enacted." it said.
Punjab RERA
Case Title : Teena Goel v. Chief Administrator, PUDA & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 0095 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 17
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has upheld the cancellation of a commercial shop allotment in Mohali after the buyer failed to meet auction payment timelines but directed refund of a separate deposit of Rs 3 lakh that had been retained without any forfeiture order in this case. The order was passed by a bench of Member Binod Kumar Singh. While examining how the payments were handled in this allotment, the Authority explained why the later deposit could not be retained.
It observed, “It is a general financial principle that the interest of any money belongs to the person (complainant) who owns the money. In case the money is utilized by other person (respondent) without any due compensation to the owner of money, the interest earned on it should be refunded to the owner (complainant).”