LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Monthly Digest: March 2026
Shivani PS
1 April 2026 2:54 PM IST
Amendment Proposal Introduced in Lok Sabha
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, has been introduced in the Lok Sabha as part of a broader legislative push to decriminalise offences and rationalise penalties across a range of laws. One of the changes relates to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 68 of the Act currently allows for imprisonment of up to one year where an allottee (homebuyer) fails to comply with orders of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. It also provides for a continuing fine, which may cumulatively extend up to 10 percent of the cost of the plot, apartment, or building.
The Bill now proposes to amend this provision. In place of imprisonment, an allottee who fails to comply with, or contravenes orders or directions of the Appellate Tribunal would be liable to a monetary penalty, which may extend up to ten percent of the cost of the plot, apartment, or building, as the case may be. "Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Appellate Tribunal by allottee.—If any allottee, who fails to comply with, or contravenes any of the orders or directions of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, he shall be liable to penalty, which may extend up to ten per cent. of the plot, apartment or building cost, as the case may be"
Supreme Court
Case Title : Kabra and Associates & Ors v Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 6936 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 109
The Supreme Court has recently held that where complainants had elected to pursue the remedy available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and withdrew their complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Authority, they could not thereafter opt for the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act for the same cause of action.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had held a consumer complaint filed by the homebuyers to be maintainable.
The Court observed, "When it was open to the complainants to elect/opt for one or the other remedy that was available to them at that time and they made that choice by approaching the Authority under the provisions of the Act of 2016 in the first instance and then decided to withdraw their complaint, reserving liberty to once again file a fresh complaint before the Authority, they could not have retracted therefrom.”
High Courts
Kerala High Court
Non-Registration Of Ongoing Project Does Not Bar RERA Or Hinder Allottee Rights: Kerala High Court
Case Title : The Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WP(C) No.6169 of 2026 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37
The Kerala High Court on 20 February held that a developer's failure to mandatorily register a housing project cannot be invoked to challenge RERA's jurisdiction, and cannot deprive allottees of statutory relief.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO), observing that once a project is compulsorily registrable under Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, complaints by allottees are maintainable before the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority(K-RERA). The Bench observed: “The breaches on the part of the promoter to fulfill the mandatory obligation under the statute, cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate rights of allottees that flow from the enactment.”
Calcutta High Court
Repeal Of 1993 West Bengal Building Act Does Not Extinguish Pending Proceedings: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : R.D.B. Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number : WPA No. 28998 of 2023 (with CAN No. 1 of 2024)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 61
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld compensation orders passed against R.D.B. Builders in a long-running flat dispute, holding that the repeal of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 does not extinguish proceedings already pending under it. The Court held: “The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any specific order that the repeal of the Act of 1993 would be effective retrospectively. The Hon'ble Court also not passed any order for transfer of all pending cases under the Act of 1993 to the concern authorities under RERA.”
Bombay High Court
Deemed Conveyance Orders Passed Before 2025 Amendment Of MOFA Remain Valid: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mahanagar Realty v. Ganga Ishanya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14936 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 107
The Bombay High Court on 23 February held that deemed conveyance orders under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, issued prior to the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2025, remain valid and cannot be reopened merely because the amendment now aligns deemed conveyance in RERA-registered projects with completion of the last building in a layout. Explaining the effect of the saving clause, the Court observed: “Section 5 of the Amendment Act, 2025 provides that any proceedings instituted including the decisions taken, orders passed or directions issued by competent authority shall be deemed to be duly and validly executed”.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Sobha Limited v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 5934 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 30
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not repugnant to the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, observing that the two statutes govern different stages in the life of a real estate project.
The finding came in a petition filed by Sobha Limited concerning the Sobha HRC Pristine residential development in Bengaluru.
Justice M.G. Uma allowed the plea and set aside the registration of a cooperative society that had been formed by a group of purchasers in the project.
The court observed,
“Under such circumstances, it is to be held that there is no repugnancy between the provisions of RERA and KAOA. Moreover, the application of the provisions of RERA will be to projects which are under development till handing over of possession of the apartment to the owners and the undivided share of the project in favour of the association of owners formed under the provisions of KAOA, whereas, the provisions of KAOA will be applicable once such handing over is complete and the association is formed in accordance with law. In other words, the provisions under RERA are applicable to the pre-ownership stage, whereas the provisions under KAOA are applicable to the post-ownership.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Vankadari Aniruddha Vaishnav & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 46 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 15
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that commercial hardship or difficulty in obtaining approvals does not amount to frustration of contract, setting aside a RERA order and ruling that Italix Living Spaces Pvt. Ltd. could not change a residential project to commercial use after dismantling the structure during pending complaints. A coram of Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N and Administrative Member Mahendra Jain found that Italix Living Spaces had acted with mala fide intent by demolishing a partially constructed structure while complaints were still pending, and directed refund of Rs 5 lakh with interest along with Rs 2.5 lakh as consolidated compensation for the loss and mental agony suffered by the allottees. “Mere commercial hardship, inconvenience, or difficulty in obtaining regulatory approvals does not amount to frustration of contract. The doctrine cannot be invoked merely because performance has become onerous or less profitable. Therefore, Promoter cannot alter the nature of the project from residential to commercial use on the pretext of non-availability of TDR, nor can such difficulty be invoked to deny relief to the Allottees”, it held.
Rajasthan REAT
Rajasthan REAT Dismisses 20 Homebuyers' Refund Appeals After Project Completion Certificate
Case Title : Lalita Soni & Ors. v. M/s Shree Ram Balaji Developers and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 288/2024 to 307/2024 and 01/2025 to 03/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 12
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), Jaipur, has recently dismissed appeals filed by 20 homebuyers seeking refunds in the “Sai Angan” housing project at Kuchaman City in Nagaur district, holding that once a project stands completed and a valid Completion Certificate has been obtained, a refund cannot be granted. A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma upheld the Rajasthan RERA order, observing. "In such circumstances for well-being of real estate project integrity and stake holders' equity learned Regulatory Authority rightly rejected the claim of refund after post Completion of project"-
Case Title : Neelam Jain & Anr. v. ARG CG Developers LLP
Case Number : Appeal No. 9/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 14
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, (REAT) Jaipur, has affirmed the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order holding that a complaint filed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, was not maintainable after finding that the dispute over construction of a solar structure on an allotted rooftop involved civil rights that were already pending before a competent civil court.
The bench comprising Chairperson Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma dismissed the appeal filed by joint allottees Neelam Jain and Anand Kumar Jain against ARG CG Developers LLP, holding that the authority had rightly concluded that the complaint could not be entertained under the 2016 Act. “It is noted that point in issue regarding solar structure on allotted roof is directly and substantially involved in Civil Suit as well as in complaint. Whether appellant is entitled for construction on allotted roof, is related to his civil right and since the civil litigation is already pending before the competent Civil Court, therefore, learned Regulatory Authority rightly concluded that the matter does not fall under the RERA Act, 2016 and rightly dismissed the complaint”, the tribunal held.
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.
Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Smt. Deepa R. v. Rajiv Raghavan Pillai
Case Number : Appeal No. RC-3 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 20
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has dismissed a plea seeking substitution of a promoter in a Goa-based real estate project, holding that such substitution cannot be permitted once the project's registration has expired and that the only remedy available is to seek fresh registration under the Act. A coram of Judicial Member Shriram R. Jagtap and Administrative Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara dismissed an appeal filed by Deepa R., proprietor of Engineers Club and purchaser of the project land, against developer Rajiv Raghavan Pillai, who was recorded as the promoter of the “Engineer's Club” project in Goa. It uphled the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order rejecting her plea for substitution of promoter.
The tribunal observed, “Substitution of promoter presupposes the existence of a valid and subsisting registration of a real estate project. In the instant case, the project registration has expired and the project is nonoperational. Accordingly, there exists no valid registration in which substitution can be effected. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant to replace her name with that of developer has no merit and invalid.”
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.
https://www.livelawbiz.com/rera/livelawbiz-rera-weekly-digest-march-22-march-28-2026-528206
REAT For NCT Of Delhi And UT Of Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Omaxe Heritage Pvt. Ltd. v. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, New Delhi
Case Number : Appeal No. 195/REAT/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (DL) 14
The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for the NCT of Delhi and UT of Chandigarh recently held that suo-motu proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act cannot be initiated merely on the basis of an RTI query, particularly after a project has been completed and possession handed over.
A bench of Judicial Member Lorren Bamniyal observed, “while exercising the suo-moto powers vested in it under the statute, there is an element of caution to be exercised by the Authority, more especially in cases where the project has been completed and possession of the units has been handed over to the buyers. There is an inbuilt requirement of caution by way of a prior enquiry and / or investigation into elements / information which is forming the basis for initiation of the suo moto proceedings. This can also be done by seeking information from the Promoter by way of a formal letter initially instead of straightaway taking resort to the enabling powers under Section 35 and 37 of the Act. Suo-moto proceedings cannot solely be based on a mere complaint received by the Authority or an RTI query being filed before it, as is the case in the present appeal”
Uttar Pradesh REAT
Case Title : Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case Number : Appeal-132/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (UP) 13
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that where a decree has attained finality between the parties, a promoter cannot maintain an appeal against a consequential order passed in execution proceedings without first depositing the entire decretal amount, including interest, as mandated under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. “Sub-section (5) of Section 43 confers upon any person aggrieved to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The proviso to Sub-section (5) provides where a promoter files an appeal with the Tribunal, 'it shall not be entertained' without the promoter 'first having deposited' with the Tribunal, the 'total amount to be paid to the allottee, including interest' before the said appeal is heard. In other words, promoter, assailing a consequential order in execution proceedings of an unchallenged judgment/decree, is required in the first instance to deposit the decretal amount granted in favour of the allottee being the total amount to be paid to the allottee”, the tribunal said.
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
Telangana RERA
RERA Does Not Prescribe Mandatory Or Uniform Format For Sale Deed: Telengana RERA
Case Title : Ravi Kumar Anchoori v. M/s Candeur Developers & Builders
Case Number : Complaint No. 277 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 50
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG-RERA) has dismissed a complaint seeking interest on Rs 62.5 lakh refunded by a developer, holding that an allottee cannot insist on a particular drafting format of a sale deed in the absence of a statutory mandate under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Clarifying the position, the Authority held, "At the outset, this Authority finds it necessary to observe that neither the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 nor the Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 prescribe any mandatory or uniform format for a Sale Deed. The statutory framework under RERA provides a model format only for the Agreement for Sale, with the object of ensuring transparency at the pre-conveyance stage. The Sale Deed, being an instrument of conveyance, is governed primarily by the applicable laws, and the contractual understanding between the parties. Therefore, the contents and structure of the Sale Deed necessarily flow from the terms agreed between the parties, subject to compliance with general registration requirements and in accord with RE(R&D) Act provisions, and an allottee cannot insist upon incorporation of matters which are not statutorily mandated."
Maharashtra RERA
MahaRERA Directs Piramal Estate To Waive 50% Interest & GST On Homebuyer For Delayed Instalment
Case Title : Tushar Dnyandeo Jagdale Versus Piramal Estate Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12502588
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 44
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 23 February directed Piramal Estate to waive 50% of the interest and GST levied on a homebuyer for delayed payment of an instalment in its Thane project.
A Bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member-I) observed that the delay could not be attributed solely to the homebuyer, as issuance of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the builder also contributed to the delay in loan disbursement. The Bench noted:
“In view of these facts and circumstances, MahaRERA is of the considered view that the levy of the entire interest and GST by the respondent for the period from 06-05-2025 to 04-06-2025 is not fully justified".
Case Title : Elkan Saphania Moses Versus Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000198193
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 51
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently rejected a complaint filed by a homebuyer seeking a refund of Rs 76.28 lakh allegedly forfeited by Piramal Estates after cancellation of a flat booking, holding that once a registered cancellation deed was executed and the refund was accepted, the transaction could not be reopened.
Member Ravindra Deshpande observed that the complainant had accepted the refund in November 2019 and raised the dispute only later.
“The Complainant, after accepting the refund amount in November 2019, has sought to raise the present dispute only subsequently by issuing a legal notice and filing the complaint, which appears to be an afterthought,” the authority said.
Case Title : Rajkumar Through Legal Heirs Yogesh Agrawal and Ors. Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd and Another
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12501926 and Another
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 46
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held Sahara Prime City Ltd liable for a delay of over a decade in handing over possession of flats in its Nagpur project. The authority directed the developer to refund Rs 33.84 lakh and Rs 20.87 lakh paid by two homebuyers along with interest.
A bench comprising Mahesh Pathak observed: “In these circumstances, MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the homebuyers.Hence, the complainants are entitled to seek refund of the amounts paid along with applicable interest, irrespective of the fact that no specific date of possession is mentioned in the booking form executed by the complainant at Sr. No. 1."
Haryana RERA
Builders Cannot Charge Labour Cess Or Work Contract Tax from Homebuyers: Haryana RERA
Case Title : Seekha Cecelia Gomes v. Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 2019 of 2025 and three connected matters.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 34
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) has recently reiterated that builders cannot recover labour cess or work contract tax from homebuyers. The authority also directed Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest to buyers for the delay in handing over flats in its Expressway Towers project in Sector 109, Gurugram. Chairman Arun Kumar observed that such charges cannot be passed on to buyers. “The allottee is neither an employer nor a contractor, and labour cess is not a tax but a fee. Thus, the demand of labour cess is completely arbitrary, and the complainant cannot be made liable to pay any labour cess,” the authority said.
Haryana RERA Holds NBCC Liable To Compensate Shop Owner For Property Loss, Interiors & Mental Agony
Case Title : Mr. Nand Lal v. M/s. NBCC (India) Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 4616 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 39
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has held that a buyer compelled to vacate a commercial unit due to structural defects is entitled to compensation for loss of property appreciation, interior work expenses, mental agony, and litigation costs, in addition to refund of the purchase price, with interest. “That it is unfortunate that the Project has become unhabitable, although, it is pointed out that the Project building still stands tall, albeit with structural cracks. Therefore, it has rendered the performance of the respondent's promises to its allottees impossible”, the Authority held.
Haryana RERA Orders Imperia Structures To Pay Lease Rental To Buyers of Gurugram Office Unit
Case Title : Vikas Verma & Ors. v. Imperia Structures Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. 3191 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 41
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Imperia Structures Ltd to pay lease rental to buyers of a commercial unit in its Gurugram project in line with commitments made under a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. A bench led by Chairperson Arun Kumar ordered the builder to pay lease rental to the complainants until the space is leased out to an intended lessee, stating: “Promoter is directed to pay lease rental at the agreed rate i.e. @ Rs. 50 per sq. ft. per month on 500 sq. ft. to the complainants from the date of valid offer of possession i.e. 06.07.2020 till the offered space is leased out to intended lessee, as per the terms of memorandum of understanding dated 06.12.2011.”
Haryana RERA Directs Builder To Refund Homebuyers Of Mahira Project After Registration Revocation
Case Title : Rudal Yadav v Mahira Buildtech Private Limited and 3 others
Case Number : Complaint No. 4618 of 2025 and 3 others
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 48
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on 13 February directed Mahira Buildtech to refund the amounts paid by homebuyers in the project Mahira Homes–103 after the project's registration was revoked due to serious irregularities.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Arun Kumar observed that, as the project registration had been revoked and the builder could no longer continue development, the homebuyers were entitled to a refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, along with interest.
Haryana RERA Directs Parsvnath Developers To Pay ₹77.63 Lakh Compensation For Delay in Possession
Case Title : Raj Kumar Chawla & Anr Versus Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 803-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 43
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 24 February directed Parsvnath Hessa Developers to pay Rs. 77.63 lakhs to a homebuyer as compensation for loss of appreciation in property value due to a delay in handing over possession.
A Bench comprising Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar, observed that property prices in Sectors 53 and 54 along Golf Course Road, Gurugram, witnessed significant appreciation between 2012 and 2022. Taking note of the market trend, the Authority held that the value of residential properties in the area had increased by around 50 percent during this period.
The Bench observed:
“Taking an overall approach, it is presumed that prices of residential houses were appreciated during the entire period from September 2012 to September 2022.”
Goa RERA
Project With Occupancy Certificate Cannot Be Treated as 'Ongoing Project' Under RERA: Goa RERA
Case Title : Shakuntala Mesquita v. K.K. Construction & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 348/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(GA) 47
The Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently dismissed a complaint seeking registration of the “Nuvem Enclave” project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority held that a project or phase which has already obtained a completion or occupancy certificate cannot subsequently be treated as an “ongoing project” requiring registration under Section 3 of the Act.
The authority, comprising Chairperson Dharmendra Sharma observed that: “The defence raised by the Respondent is persuasive on facts and law. The statutory scheme for determining an 'ongoing project' and if it is a 'registrable' project, embeds within its calculus exclusion of projects or phases thereof, for which completion certificate has been issued.”
Punjab RERA
Case Title : Gora Singh v. The Chief Administrator, Bathinda Development Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 0062 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 36
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 19 February, held that the existence of an arbitration clause or a statutory bar under State law does not oust its jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that in the absence of a valid Completion Certificate and completion of development works, an allottee is entitled to refund with interest for delay in handing over possession. The Authority held: “At the very outset it is concluded that none of the legal issues raised by the respondents have any merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Vs. Aftab Singh' (Civil Appeals No.23512-23513 of 2017) held that mere presence of an arbitration class does not preclude the jurisdiction of this Authority.”
RERA Act Does Not Mandate Builder To Provide Guest Parking Or Equal Parking Allocation: Punjab RERA
Case Title : Manpreet Singh v. Udit Jain & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. GC No. 0164 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 52
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not mandate builders to provide reserved guest parking, equal parking slots to all residents, or to allocate parking spaces in any specific manner. The Authority comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyer Manpreet Singh against Udit Jain (Director of One Group), One Group and Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (respondents) concerning parking allocation in the Mohali-based 'One Rise' residential project. “There is no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to instruct the builder to provide 5% reserved common parking space for guest, to allocate equal number of parking to all the flat owners and to define the size and area of the parking", it observed.
Punjab RERA Directs Omaxe Chandigarh Developers To Pay 10.80% Interest For Delayed Possession
Case Title : Bharat Singh Bisht & Anr Versus M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No.0344 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (CH) 42
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 2 March directed Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers to pay interest at the rate of 10.80% per annum to a homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
A Bench comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh observed:
“Respondent is further directed to pay interest under Section 18(1) of the Act of 2016 at the rate of 10.80% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant from the date of this order till the delivery of valid legal possession of the flat.”
The Authority noted that the total consideration also included the Homebuyer's proportionate share in common areas and facilities, such as lifts, corridors, electrical connections, plumbing, and other project amenities. Therefore, the Homebuyer's contention seeking a refund of the amount allegedly charged on the basis of super area was rejected.
Tamil Nadu RERA
Tamil Nadu RERA Orders Registration Of Prestige Silver Springs As An 'Ongoing' Project
Case Title : Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association, through its Secretary v. M/s Prestige South City Holdings & Anr.
Case Number : C. No. 89 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 35
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TN RERA) on 4 February, directed Prestige South City Holdings to register the project “Prestige Silver Springs” under RERA within 60 days, holding that where villas remained incomplete when the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into force, the project must be treated as an “ongoing project” requiring registration under Section 3. The Bench observed: “Ultimately, the villas were provided with water sewerage connection only on 06.06.2023. Therefore, the project "Prestige Silver Springs" was not completed on the date of coming into force of RERA Act. Therefore, it is an ongoing project only.”
Tamil Nadu RERA Orders Casagrand Millenia to Pay Rs. 3 Lakh for Mental Agony Over Delayed Possession
Case Title : Logeshwaran Janardhanan & Anr. v. M/s. Casagrand Millenia Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CCP No. 54 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 40
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 10 February, held that a homebuyer is entitled to compensation foxr mental agony caused by delayed possession and directed Casagrand Millenia to pay Rs. 3 Lakh. The Authority also awarded Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs. Adjudicating Officer Tmt. N. Uma Maheswari observed: “There is no use of executing the sale deed alone in favour of the complainants without handing over the booked unit to them. Ex.A3 — The Construction Agreement is silent about the stagewise payments. In these circumstances, the delay caused by the respondent is not acceptable and thereby the complainants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the mental agony they have sustained due to the delay.”
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyers against Godrej SSPDL Green Acres LLP, the developer of the residential project “Godrej Azure – Twr 2 – Emerald” in Kancheepuram district, seeking rectification of alleged structural defects in their flat or, in the alternative, refund of the purchase amount.
A coram comprising Members Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. D. Jagannathan (Retd. IAS) held that the refund could not be granted as the complainants had already taken possession of the flat in June 2020 and continued to remain in possession. The Authority also noted that records showed the developer had undertaken rectification works when complaints were raised.
The bench observed:
“Upon the perusal of documents filed by the Respondents, the job cards dated 18.07.2021, 03.08.2021 and 30.04.2022 shows that the rectification works were taken up by the Respondents and the same was acknowledged by the complainants and their Tenant."
Case Title : R. Jagan Kumar v. Selene Estate Limited
Case Number : C.No. 121 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 55
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently held that labour shortage, material scarcity and delay in approvals are not valid excuses for construction delay and found Selene Estate Limited in violation of its agreement with complainant R. Jagan Kumar after cancelling the allotment and reselling the flat to a third party. The Authority, comprising Chairperson Thiru Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Thiru Sukumar Chittibabu, held that the complainant had complied with the payment schedule and that the resale at a higher price showed a profit motive. “The Respondent has submitted that delay in construction occurred due to natural calamities, labour and material shortage, delay in statutory approvals etc. All these reasons are very generic in nature and cannot be held as valid reasons for delay. It is the responsibility of the Respondent to arrange labour and construction material and obtain statutory approvals. It is beyond the apprehension of this Authority that what kind of statutory approvals the Respondent is talking about when the project has already been registered with TNRERA,” the Authority observed.
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.”
Haryana RERA
Development Authority Constructing Flats for Sale Is a Promoter Under RERA: Haryana RERA
Case Title : Balwan Singh v. Housing Board Haryana & Anr.
Case Number : Complaint No. 3151 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 54
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Panchkula, has recently held that a development authority that constructs and allots flats for sale falls within the definition of a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and can be directed to refund the allottee with interest for failure to hand over possession within a reasonable time. Passing the order in a complaint filed by Balwan Singh, Member Nadiam Akhtar directed the Housing Board Haryana to pay Rs 3,46,507 as the balance refund with interest, noting that the Board had retained the complainant's money for years without offering possession of the flat. The Authority observed, "Plain reading of the definition given under section 2(zk) makes it clear that any development authority in respect of allottees of building/apartment, as the case may be, constructed by such authority for sale is a promoter in respect of allottees of those buildings/apartments. Here, Housing Board Haryana is a Development Authority and has issued an allotment letter to complainant on 12.02.2015 and issued provisional registration number 36/RTK05/T-B/HGB and final registration number 120 at Rohtak Sector-5. Hence, Housing Board is covered under the definition of promoter under section 2(zk).."
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.”
Andhra Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Bellana Bangaru Naidu v. Hayagreeva Farms and Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 43 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(AP) 53
The Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 5 February, held that a prospective buyer who has neither booked a unit nor entered into an agreement for sale cannot be termed an “aggrieved person” under Section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and therefore cannot maintain a complaint before the Authority. Chairperson A. Siva Reddy and Member M. Venkata Ratnam, dismissed proceedings initiated by Bellana Bangaru Naidu against Hayagreeva Farms and Developers as not maintainable. They held: “A person who has not booked a unit or entered into a registered agreement lacks the locus standi to seek specific reliefs against a project as they have no 'privity of contract' or vested interest in the project's assets.”
Telangana RERA
Case Title : Ch. Venkateswara Rao v. M/s Green Space Properties & Ors.
Case Number : 582/2025/TGRERA CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 33
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has recently imposed a penalty of over Rs 22 lakh on Green Space Properties for advertising and executing sale transactions in its “Green Space Indra Nagar” project without obtaining mandatory registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. “The language of Section 3(1) is prohibitory and mandatory. Registration of the real estate project is a condition precedent to any act of advertisement, marketing, booking, sale or offer for sale,” the authority observed.
Himachal Pradesh RERA
RERA Homebuyer Cannot Claim Refund Of Club Fee Included In Sale Agreement: Himachal Pradesh RERA
Case Title : Sapan Kumar v. Omaxe Chandigarh
Case Number : Complaint No. HPRERA20250026/C
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 38
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) held that club membership charges clearly included in the Agreement for Sale form part of the agreed cost of the flat, and no refund can be claimed merely because the membership was allegedly optional. “Once a charge is expressly mentioned in the Agreement for Sale and is accepted by the allottee/ complainant, the same cannot be treated as optional merely on the basis of 'subsequent conduct or selective enforcement. The rights and liabilities of the parties flow from the Agreement for Sale executed between them and the complainant is bound by the terms of the Agreement for sale which he has voluntarily accepted”, the Authority held.
Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Shakeel K Moideenkutty Versus Ozone Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number : CMP/246/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 37
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a developer in this case could not deduct 20 percent of the amount paid by a homebuyer after failing to deliver possession within the agreed timeline. A coram of Member G.R. Reddy directed Ozone Developers Pvt Ltd and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt Ltd to refund about 1.10 crore rupees to a homebuyer who had booked an apartment in the project “Urbana Pavilion” in Bengaluru The Authority observed, “It is undisputed fact that the respondents failed to handover possession of the flat to the complainant as per the timeline prescribed in the agreement of sale.”
Bihar RERA
Bihar RERA Drops Suo Motu Case Against Developer; Finds No Advertisement Of Unregistered Project
Case Title : Authorised Representative of RERA v M/s Kushika Tradserv Pvt Ltd
Case Number : RERA/SM/682/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 58
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dropped suo motu proceedings against developer Kushika Tradserv Pvt Ltd in relation to its project “Basmati Vatika." The Authority held that the action, initiated under Sections 35 and 59 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, could not be sustained, as no advertisement of the project was found. Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh directed the developer to apply for registration of the project.
Explaining its reasoning, the Authority observed that "after perusing the material placed on record and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is clear that project has been applied for registration with the Authority and that no advertisement has been found at the work site or on online platform which could establish contravention of section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and development) Act 2016".