LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Monthly Digest: September 2026
Shivani PS
1 Oct 2026 1:37 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Directs WB Chief Secretary To Give Timeline For Filling RERA, REAT Vacancies
Case Title Rahul Parasrampuria v. The State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number WPA (P) 427 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC( CAL) 219
On Tuesday, 15 September, the Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal Chief Secretary's office to specify a timeline for filling vacancies in the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) and the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA).
A Division Bench comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra directed the Chief Secretary's office to file a report indicating the status of appointments to the posts of REAT Chairperson and Judicial Member and a Member of WBRERA. The judges observed:
“Let the Office of the Chief Secretary file a report indicating the stage of filling up of vacancies in the aforesaid posts and also mentioning a time limit within which the vacancies will be filled up.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Lack Of Written Allotment Or Agreement Itself Cannot Oust RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr.
Case Number : MA No. 105 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH)25
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the absence of a written allotment document or agreement does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) over a complaint concerning an alleged real estate transaction.
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed, “The word “aggrieved person” used under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 and under Rule 35 of the Rules, 2017, who can file complaint is very wide, therefore, only because no written document to show the allotment of any real estate or any agreement between the parties in itself will not oust the jurisdiction of the RERA."
Allahabad High Court
Substantial Question Of Law Essential For Appeal Under RERA Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Balaji Infracare Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Omkar Nath Maheshwari v. Vikas Sharma
Case Number : RERA APPEAL No. - 160 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 73
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is maintainable only where a substantial question of law arises, and that an order by which the Appellate Tribunal remands a matter to the Regulatory Authority, without finally determining the rights of either party, gives rise to no such question.
Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 permits a person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to appeal to the High Court within sixty days, but only on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows a second appeal where the case involves a substantial question of law.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“It is thus manifest that, having regard to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 58 of the Act of 2016, an appeal is entertainable when it involves a 'substantial question of law'. The existence of a substantial question of law is, therefore, the sine qua non for invoking and exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 58 of the Act of 2016.”
Tripura High Court
Case Title : Shri Kishore Roy Acharjee & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 437 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 7
The Tripura High Court has imposed ₹40,000 in costs on four homebuyers over parallel proceedings concerning alleged unauthorised construction at an apartment complex in Agartala.
The homebuyers had approached both the Tripura Real Estate Regulatory Authority (T-RERA) and the Agartala Municipal Corporation. They also filed an execution proceeding before T-RERA before approaching the High Court but did not disclose this fact.
“It transpires that they have not approached this Court with clear hands,” Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud observed.
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Nitin Madhukar Shewale & Ors.
Case Number : Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 8825 of 2025 with Interim Application No. 7869 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 537
The Bombay High Court has recently held that homebuyers who withdraw from a delayed housing project cannot be made to wait for a refund until the developer obtains an Occupation Certificate (OC).
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the right of such homebuyers to receive their money back with interest is “absolute and unqualified”.
“Thus, on plain reading of Section 18 of RERA, in my view, the right to seek return of amount with interest is absolute and unqualified. The right cannot be diluted by the Regulatory Authority or by the Appellate Authority or even by the High Court by giving any concession to the promoter to return the amount only after securing OC for the project,” the court held.
The ruling came in a second appeal filed by Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors against orders directing them to refund money paid by Nitin Madhukar Shewale and another homebuyer for the Waterways project in Nashik.
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.
RERA Tribunal Has Inherent Power To Restore Proceedings Dismissed For Default: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Hubtown Ltd. v. Smitesh Shivaji Patil
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 221 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 3411 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 483
The Bombay High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed for default, even though such power is not expressly provided under Section 53(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), as the Tribunal is required to be guided by principles of natural justice.
Justice N. J. Jamadar, on 22 July, dismissed developer Hubtown Ltd.'s second appeal and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order restoring proceedings that had been dismissed after homebuyer Smitesh Shivaji Patil failed to appear. The Bench observed:
“In a sense, the power to restore a proceeding dismissed in default is a necessary corollary of the power to dismiss the proceeding, in the first place. The power of restoration is implicit in the power of dismissal unless specifically proscribed. When the Appellate Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice in its determination, it cannot be urged with authority that, the Appellate Tribunal cannot restore a proceeding dismissed in default, where it finds that, the cause of justice and equity would be better subserved by restoring the proceeding dismissed in default.”
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 53/2022 & FAO (COMM) 91/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a homebuyer can claim compensation for delayed possession through arbitration even though remedies are also available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“Merely because the Respondent elected to invoke the arbitration agreement instead of pursuing remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or RERA, it cannot be deprived of compensation otherwise legally payable for delayed possession The substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Act of 1872, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and RERA statutes provides additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcement of that right.,” the court observed.
It held that the substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while RERA and the Consumer Protection Act provide additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcing that right.
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed two appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd. and upheld arbitral awards in favour of homebuyer Asha Saini. The arbitrator had awarded compensation at 15% per annum for the delay in handing over possession of two flats.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Telangana REAT
Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.5 Lakh Penalty Over Extra Clubhouse Floor, Revised Plan
Case Title Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP and Others v Neelima Vanguru
Case Number T.A. No. 35 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 69
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld a ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed on Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP for constructing an additional floor in the clubhouse without obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the allottees and failing to upload the revised building plan on the RERA website.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed the appeal filed by the promoter and two landowners. It upheld the Telangana RERA order imposing the penalty under Sections 60 and 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for contraventions of Sections 11 and 14.
Telangana REAT Says Promoter Cannot Alter Possession Date, Dismisses 31 Appeals By Vasavi Realtors
Case Title M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi & connected matters
Case Number T.A. Nos. 17 to 47 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 66
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 9 September held that extension of a real estate project's registration does not automatically extend the possession timeline agreed with homebuyers, and a promoter cannot unilaterally alter the contractual possession date without their consent.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed 31 appeals filed by Vasavi Realtors LLP against Telangana RERA orders directing it to pay delay interest to homebuyers in its “Vasavi Lake City-West” project at Hafeezpet. The Tribunal observed:
“However, we are of the considered view that extension of registration of a project does not automatically mean that the due date for completion of the project as per the respective agreements of sale also get extended. The agreement of sale is a legally enforceable document under Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the promoter cannot unilaterally alter the date for handing over possession unless both the parties agreed to change the due date of handing over of possession of the flat.”
Tamil Nadu REAT
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.”
Tamil Nadu REAT Directs Prestige To Hand Over Service Plots To Villa Owners' Association
Case Title : M/s Prestige South City Holdings v. Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association & Anr.; Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association v. Prestige South City Holdings & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 33 & 37 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 60
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 2 September partly allowed an appeal filed by the Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association and directed Prestige South City Holdings and Ratnavara Developers LLP to hand over two service plots in the villa project within two months.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu noted that a developer and landowner cannot retain service plots earmarked for common use in a sanctioned layout on the basis of an arbitral award to which the villa owners' association was not a party. The Tribunal observed:
“The Villa owners purchased the Villas as per the CMDA sanctioned plan. The sanctioned plan clearly mandates that all common areas shall not be utilized otherwise than as indicated in the sanctioned plan. Further, in the Arbitration proceedings, the appellant Association was not a party and the findings of the Arbitration proceedings in which the appellant Association was not a party shall not bind them. The land owner or the builder cannot be allowed to violate the sanctioned plan. In such circumstances, service Plot Nos.4 & 5 (II), which form part of the approved layout in the sanctioned plan, cannot be utilized or retained by the 1st respondent.”
Haryana REAT
Valid Possession Offer Before Due Date Bars Homebuyer's Delay Compensation: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Mrs. Urmila Kumari Kadam v. M/s Y. B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. 696 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 62
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 31 August held that a homebuyer cannot claim delayed-possession charges where the promoter made a valid offer of possession before the stipulated possession date, even if physical possession was handed over later.
A Bench comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan dismissed an appeal filed by homebuyer Urmila Kumari Kadam and upheld the Gurugram Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order refusing delayed-possession charges against Y.B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Nimai Developers. It held:
“The promoters made offer of possession to the allottee on 01.04.2023, which constitutes valid offer of possession. The Authority rightly observed that as 'valid offer of possession' was given to the allottee, she is not entitled for any delay possession charges.”
Maharashtra REAT
Case Number : M.A. Nos. 1123/26, 1723/26, 1178/26, 1124/26, 1125/26, 691/26 & 712/26 in connected appeals
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 71
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has recently allowed two homebuyers to withdraw amounts deposited by Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. as the mandatory pre-deposit for its appeals, after finding that prolonged possession delays had left them paying both EMIs and rent.
In one case, the project remained incomplete for more than four years. In the other, possession was due by December 31, 2014, while the homebuyer had paid 92.8% of the consideration through an HDFC Bank loan and had been paying EMI and rent for 10 years.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed in the first case:
“The applicant is required to stay in the rented accommodation since there is delay of more than 4 years in completing the said project and handing over possession of the flat. While applicant is paying EMIs the applicant is also required to pay the rental amount for rented accommodation. We are of the view that this has been causing great hardship to the applicant.”
Case Title RA Residences Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. RA Associates & Ors.
Case Number Appeal No. AT06/00804/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 70
On 16 September, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) penalised RA Associates and its partners, promoters of the “RA Residences” project in Mumbai, with a penalty equivalent to 2% of the project cost for altering the disclosed project plan and increasing the Floor Space Index (FSI) of the commercial building without obtaining the prior informed consent of the allottees.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande also directed the promoters to execute conveyance of the residential building within 60 days, holding that promoters cannot indefinitely postpone conveyance by relying on the possibility of procuring additional FSI or Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The Tribunal held:
“...In fact, once the FSI available in the project property is exhausted, the promoters are obligated to execute the conveyance and are not entitled to any further FSI, if available, due to change in policy within the property or procured from elsewhere.”
Builder Can't Terminate Allotment For Non-Payment Without Executing Agreement For Sale: MahaREAT
Case Title Manojkumar Singh v. Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number Appeal No. AT006000000204882 of 2024, arising from Complaint No. CC006000000282178 of 2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 65
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MHREAT) on 7 September held that a builder cannot accept more than 10% of the consideration for a flat without first executing and registering an Agreement for Sale under Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande further held that a builder cannot terminate a homebuyer's allotment for non-payment when the builder itself has failed to execute the Agreement for Sale and imposed a Rs. 10 lakh penalty on the builder for violating Section 13. The Tribunal held:
“The allotment letter and payment receipts demonstrate the existence of a valid and concluded contract between the parties. The Respondent having accepted substantial payment towards the flat, could not have failed to execute and register the Agreement for Sale.”
MHREAT Rejects Homebuyers' Plea To Condon 266-Day Delay, Says Litigant Can't Blame Advocate Entirely
Case Title Shashank Vengasarkar & Anr v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case Number M.A. No. 1357/26 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT06/00334/2026, arising from Complaint No. CC006000000354526
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 64
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MHREAT) on 10 September dismissed a homebuyers' application seeking condonation of a 266-day delay in filing an appeal against a MahaRERA order concerning a flat purchased from Larsen & Toubro.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that a litigant cannot seek condonation of delay by placing the entire blame on their advocate. Further, that negligence, inaction or lack of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay. It noted:
“...we are of the view that the applicants cannot throw entire blame on the Advocate and therefore, it cannot be taken as a ground for condonation of delay.”
Maharashtra REAT Orders Demolition Of Additional Building Over Lack Of Homebuyer Consent
Case Title : Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Parshwanath Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006000000345557 & AT006000000345563 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 63
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has ordered the demolition of an additional building in the Parshvadhara project at Belavali, Thane, after finding that it was not disclosed to homebuyers and could not be constructed without their prior informed consent.
The tribunal directed the promoters to demolish the additional building at their own expense within 90 days. It also ordered restoration of the playground, garden, children's playground, recreation ground and other open spaces in accordance with the 2015 sanctioned plan, brochure and other disclosures made to the allottees.
The order was passed by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande on September 7, 2026.
Forfeiture Clause Cannot Be Mechanically Enforced on Cancellation Of Flat Booking: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Godrej Skyline Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Joy Salve
Case Number : Appeal No. AT005000000134212 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 61
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a developer cannot mechanically enforce a forfeiture clause to retain the entire amount paid by a homebuyer on cancellation of his booking.
This is particularly so when no Agreement for Sale was executed or registered between the parties.
Rejecting the developer's claim that its contractual terms allowed it to keep the payment, the tribunal observed,
“We are unable to accept the contention of the Appellant/Promoter that the mere existence of such a clause confers a right upon it to forfeit the entire amount paid by the Respondent/Allottee as part consideration amount. A forfeiture clause cannot be enforced mechanically, particularly where the transaction has not finally culminated in execution or registration of an Agreement for Sale. Further, the material placed on record does not demonstrate the financial loss corresponding to the entire amount sought to be forfeited.”
Rajasthan REAT
Rajasthan REAT Stays RERA Order Granting Interim Relief Not Prayed For By Allottee
Case Title : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Anil Kumar Tak & Connected Appeals
Case Number: Appeal Nos. 320/2026, 329/2026, 330/2026, 331/2026 & 332/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 72
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has stayed an ex-parte interim order that prevented the Rajasthan Housing Board from proposing any increase over the ₹99.86 lakh tentative cost of flats in its AIS Residency Phase-II project in Jaipur. The order had also restrained the Board from demanding additional payments from the allottees.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma observed that “the ex-parte interim-order was passed despite the fact that categorically, no interim relief was prayed for by the complaints.”
Karnataka REAT
Co-op Society Without Land Or Layout For Real Estate Project Not Promoter Under RERA: Karnataka REAT
Case Title V. Suresh Kumar v BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd and Anr
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 3/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 68
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that a housing co-operative society that had not acquired any land for development and had no project in existence could not be treated as a “Promoter” under RERA.
A complaint seeking relief under the Act was therefore not maintainable before Karnataka RERA.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the BSNL Employees Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
The tribunal held, “Undisputedly, the Respondent No.1/Co-operative Society has not acquired any land for development and consequently it does not fall into the definition of Promoter and there is no project in existence let alone Complainant could be called as an Allottee.”
Builder Cannot Compel Registration Of Time-Barred Agreement For Sale: Karnataka REAT
Case Title Sobha Ltd v Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors
Case Number : Appeal No. K-REAT 81 of 2025 with Appeal No. K-REAT 102 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 67
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a promoter cannot require the Sub-Registrar to register an Agreement for Sale presented beyond the four-month period prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N observed, “in view of the statutory bar contained in section 23 of the Registration Act, the Promoter cannot compel the Sub-Registrar to register an Agreement to Sell if it is presented beyond the period prescribed under the said Act.”
The ruling came in appeals filed by Sobha Ltd and two allottees of its Sobha Sentosa project in Bengaluru.
Case Title : Goyal Hariyana Realty v. Mrs. Vinaya & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 42/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 59
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a settlement deed covering disputes existing when it was signed cannot be treated as an unconditional waiver of claims over construction defects discovered after the homebuyers took possession.
The tribunal observed that the settlement was confined to claims “subsisting” between the parties when the deed was executed. Its broad language could not be construed as giving up claims arising from defects discovered later and which were not within the parties' contemplation at the time of settlement.
A bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. delivered the judgment on September 1, 2026.
The tribunal dismissed an appeal by Goyal Hariyana Realty and upheld an order directing the builder and the landowner to jointly pay ₹6 lakh as compensation to two homebuyers for alleged construction defects, besides ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
The tribunal observed,
“Consequently, the settlement of the then subsisting disputes cannot, merely by virtue of the general language employed therein, be construed as an unconditional relinquishment of claims arising from defects which were discovered subsequently and which were not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering into the settlement.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Bihar RERA
Bihar RERA Holds Section 39 Of RERA Act Cannot Be Used To Review Liability On Merits
Case Title : Kumod Kumar v. M/s Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/368/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 134
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA) on 31 August held that rectification under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) cannot be used to materially alter a substantive finding of liability, as doing so would amount to reviewing the original order on merits.
Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh rejected an application filed by Kumod Kumar, Complainant, a former director of Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd., seeking deletion of his name and liability from an earlier refund order concerning the Ramagya Residency project. The Authority observed:
“Rectification cannot be invoked for re-hearing the original matter, re-appreciating evidence, reconsidering disputed questions of fact, taking a different view on materials already considered, or substituting a fresh decision in place of the decision already rendered.”
Telengana RERA
Case Title : Achanti Shilpa & Anr. v. M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP
Case Number: Complaint No. 660 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 145
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Telangana RERA) on 25 August directed Vasavi Realtors LLP to pay 10.70% annual interest to homebuyers Shilpa and Sridhar for delayed possession in its Vasavi Lake City West project, noting that more than 50 complaints had reached it against the developer concerning the same project.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao expressed “grave concern” over a “systemic pattern of default” and directed interest payment from 1 March 2024 until lawful possession and warned that any further default or non-compliance would invite penalty proceedings under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority observed:
“This Authority takes note, with grave concern, that over fifty complaints have already been received against this same Respondent arising from the same project. Such a systemic pattern of default, repeated false assurances, and disregard for the statutory framework strikes at the very foundation of homebuyer confidence. The RE(R&D) Act was enacted as a beneficial legislation to protect innocent homebuyers, and this Respondent's conduct is in gross derogation of that mandate. Any further default, non-compliance, or grievance brought by allottees will invite proceedings under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
Landowner Liable For Project Registration Despite Developer Agreement: Rajasthan RERA
Case Title Suo Motu v. K.D. Developers
Case Number F.15 (326) RJ/RERA/C/2024 (RAJ-RERA-Suo Motu-2026-77)
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 139
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a landowner cannot avoid statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, merely because a development agreement assigns construction and other development responsibilities to a developer.
The authority penalised developer Siddharth Landmark LLP and landowner Brajesh Saxena ₹1 lakh each for violating the registration requirement under the Act in connection with the unregistered multi-storey residential project “99 Avenue” in Jaipur. It also directed them to apply for registration of the project within 45 days.
Chairperson Veenu Gupta observed:
“The contractual allocation of particular development responsibilities to the developer cannot, by itself, absolve the landowner from the statutory obligations arising under the Act in respect of the project.”
Case Title : Meenu Purohit v. Govind Kripa Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : RAJ-RERA-C-N-2025-7847 and connected complaints
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 135
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a former shareholder and director of a promoter company who exited a real estate project and was subsequently allotted 20 flats in his individual capacity under agreements to sell qualifies as an “allottee” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Sudhir Kumar Sharma held that the documents executed after his exit established an allottee-promoter relationship, despite his earlier association with the company.
The authority observed, “The factum of purchase of 20 units solely by the complainant does not categorize him as an 'investor', and he still remains an allottee within the definition of Section 2(d) of the Act.”
Section 2(d) of the RERA Act defines an “allottee” as a person to whom a plot, apartment, or building has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by a promoter. Section 31 enables an aggrieved person to approach the authority with a complaint under the Act.
Tamil Nadu RERA
TNRERA Rejects Builder's 2027 Possession Date Plea After Earlier Handover Promise, Directs Interest
Case Title Namasivayam v Casa Grande Smart Values Homes Pvt Ltd and Others
Case Number R.C.P. No. 107 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 138
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) on 3 September held that a builder cannot rely on a distant contractual possession date when it had separately committed to an earlier handover through its own communications.
A Bench of Chairperson K. Phanindra Reddy with Members A. Nazir Ahamed and Reeta Harish Thakkar directed Casa Grande Smart Values Homes to pay delay interest to a homebuyer who had booked a villa in its Casagrand Divinity project in Chengalpattu. The Authority observed:
“...the Complainant is entitled for the interest for delay during the period from the promised date of handover till the actual date of handing over of the possession of the villa.”
Karnataka RERA
Standard-Form Agreement For Sale Cannot Waive Homebuyers' Right To Delay Interest: Karnataka RERA
Case Title Satyendra Kumar Singh & Sonika Kumari Singh v. Bharathiya Urban Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 01520/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 137
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has held that homebuyers do not lose their statutory right to compensation for delayed possession merely because they signed a standard-form Agreement for Sale.
It found that such contractual terms cannot defeat statutory protection where buyers had no real or effective opportunity to negotiate or alter them.
Chairman Rakesh Singh observed that "the Allottees, having entered into a standard-form Agreement for Sale prepared by the Promoter, cannot be presumed to have voluntarily waived or surrendered their statutory rights merely by signing the said Agreement. The fact that such a clause was incorporated as part of the standard contractual terms, without any real or effective opportunity for the Allottees to negotiate or alter the same, cannot operate to defeat the statutory protection afforded to them under the RERA Act."
K-RERA Says 2/3 Allottee Consent Needed For Changes Beyond Sale Agreement
Case Title : Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited |
Case Number: Complaint No. 00772/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 136
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has reiterated that consent from two-thirds of allottees is required only when a proposed alteration goes beyond what was mutually agreed in the contract.
Relying on an appellate tribunal ruling, the authority comprising Chairman Rakesh SIngh and Member GR Reddy ruled, “The requirement of consent of 2/3rd allottees arises only when there is an alteration beyond what was mutually agreed in the contract,” the Authority observed.
K-RERA made the observation while dismissing a complaint by the Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association seeking revocation of the registration of L&T Realty Developers Limited's Elara Celestia project and demolition of commercial buildings.
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.”
Case Title : Sh. Chinu Goyal v. M/s Barnala Builders
Case Number : GC No. 0126/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 133
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has ruled that although a developer had made payments described as assured returns to a homebuyer, those payments alone could not establish that it was contractually bound to pay a 12% annual return until possession.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed that the buyer had to establish the contractual basis for the claimed return, including its rate, period, and conditions. Earlier payments could not, by themselves, add such terms to or enlarge the Agreement for Sale.
The Authority observed, “However, the fact that payments were made does not, by itself, establish the precise contractual rate of 12%, the period for which such return was payable, the conditions attached thereto, or that the obligation continued until the date of possession. A payment made pursuant to a commercial understanding is not, by itself, sufficient to rewrite or enlarge the terms of the Agreement for Sale"