Gurugram RERA rejects objection on limitation and awards Rs 11.24 Lakh Compensation to Homebuyers

 

Gurugram RERA Awards Rs 11.24 Lakh Compensation to Homebuyers in S.S. Group Case

Gurugram: The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram has awarded Rs 11.24 lakh in compensation to homebuyers Shashi Rastogi and Colonel Rajendra Kumar Rastogi (Retd.) in a dispute involving S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. and its The Leaf project in Gurugram.

The order was passed on September 11, 2026, in Complaint No. 2934 of 2025 by Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar. The case concerned the buyers' claim for compensation following the developer's failure to deliver their residential unit within the agreed period.

Possession was due in September 2016

The homebuyers had booked a unit in Tower-1 of The Leaf, located in Sectors 84-85, Gurugram, and paid approximately Rs 39.38 lakh to the developer.

Possession was contractually due on September 24, 2016, but was not delivered. The buyers subsequently sought cancellation and refund, citing, among other things, medical exigencies.

In an earlier proceeding, the HRERA Authority directed S.S. Group on October 4, 2022 to refund Rs 39.38 lakh along with 10% annual interest calculated from the respective dates of payment until refund.

RERA rejects limitation objection

The developer argued that the subsequent compensation complaint was time-barred because it was filed years after the original default and possession deadline.

The Adjudicating Officer rejected the contention that the complaint was automatically barred by limitation. The order observed that the RERA Act does not prescribe a specific period for filing a complaint seeking compensation and that the question of reasonable time must be examined in light of public policy.

The compensation proceedings were initiated in June 2025, when the homebuyers approached the Adjudicating Officer under Sections 31 and 71 of the RERA Act.

Refund and interest did not bar separate compensation claim

Another important issue was whether the earlier refund order prevented the buyers from subsequently seeking compensation.

The developer argued that compensation could not be awarded after the Authority had already ordered refund with interest.

The Adjudicating Officer rejected that argument, holding that an allottee's receipt of refund with interest does not, by itself, prevent a separate claim for compensation under Section 18 where the statutory conditions are met.

Rs 11.24 lakh compensation awarded

The Adjudicating Officer considered the buyers' claim relating to loss of property appreciation, while noting that the complainants had not produced conclusive evidence establishing a specific annual appreciation rate for the property.

The order nevertheless assessed the loss using available market-price information.

The compensation comprised:

• Rs 8.74 lakh towards loss of property appreciation;

• Rs 2 lakh for mental agony and harassment; and

• Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.

The total compensation therefore came to Rs 11.24 lakh.

The amount was directed to carry 11% annual interest from September 11, 2026 until realisation.

Broader significance

The ruling addresses two issues of interest to homebuyers: whether the RERA Act imposes a fixed limitation period for compensation claims and whether a previous order granting refund and interest prevents an allottee from seeking additional compensation.

The order indicates that, in the circumstances of this case, refund with interest and compensation were treated as distinct remedies, while the question of delay was examined through the requirement that proceedings be brought within a reasonable period.

The decision therefore adds to the developing body of RERA jurisprudence concerning delayed possession, refund, compensation and the rights of homebuyers after a project fails to meet its promised delivery timeline.

Gujarat RERA Unveils SOP for Completion of Stalled Real Estate Projects - GujRERA/Order- 115 dated 23.07.2026

 

Gujarat RERA Unveils SOP for Completion of Stalled Real Estate Projects

The Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority (GujRERA) has introduced a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) vide GujRERA/Order- 115 dated 23.07.2026 for intervention and completion of stalled or stressed real estate projects, laying down a structured mechanism for completing projects where the original promoter is unable or unwilling to do so.

The framework, issued under Sections 8 and 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is aimed at protecting homebuyers while ensuring that unfinished projects can be revived through a transparent and time-bound process.

Under the new framework, GujRERA can consider intervention in projects whose registration has lapsed, has been revoked, or which have otherwise been identified as stalled or stressed. The authority may take into account factors such as prolonged suspension of construction, the promoter's financial or legal inability to complete the project and a substantial number of complaints from allottees.

Allottee associations get first right of refusal

One of the key provisions of the SOP is that the Association of Allottees will have the first right of refusal to undertake completion of the remaining development work. Other options include the landowner, a mortgagee bank or financial institution, or another developer or promoter.

An allottee association may coordinate with GujRERA, submit a completion proposal, or undertake the remaining work either directly or through contractors, project management consultants or a new developer.

The authority may also invite other developers through an Expression of Interest process. Their financial strength, technical capability, previous project record and RERA compliance history will be among the factors considered.

Two-thirds consent required for completion proposal

The SOP requires a proposed completion plan to be supported by the consent of at least two-thirds of the project's allottees. Where an allottee association submits the proposal, the relevant general-body or governing-board resolution will also be required.

The framework's prescribed consent declaration also provides for the substitution or appointment of a new promoter and the transfer or assignment of rights, obligations and responsibilities necessary for completing the project.

Financial viability to determine revival model

GujRERA's SOP places considerable emphasis on the financial and technical feasibility of stalled projects. Completion proposals will have to set out the source and utilisation of funds, the balance cost of construction, outstanding lender liabilities, construction milestones and any additional amount that may be required from allottees.

The authority's feasibility assessment will also examine the physical stage of construction, structural condition, remaining development work, funds collected from buyers, the balance in the RERA separate account, outstanding receivables, lender and statutory liabilities, land title, encumbrances, approvals and pending litigation.

Promoters face restrictions after lapse or revocation

Once a project's registration lapses or is revoked, the promoter will no longer be permitted to advertise, market, book or sell units in the project. Withdrawals from the project's RERA separate account are also to be frozen pending further directions from the authority.

The original promoter will also be required to provide updated information on allottees, audited project finances, unsold inventory and encumbrances, including outstanding project loans.

GujRERA to oversee new completion entity

After examining proposals and consulting the appropriate government and competent authorities, GujRERA will determine the most appropriate model for completing the project. Factors will include the proposed entity's capability, the physical status of the project, technical feasibility, financial viability and the interests of allottees and other stakeholders.

Once a completion model is approved, the authority can hand over the project to the selected entity for the limited purpose of carrying out the remaining development work.

The new entity will remain subject to RERA compliance, while GujRERA can review progress at intervals of no more than six months. Failure to adhere to the approved completion schedule or financial plan could lead to further action under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act.

The new SOP therefore establishes a formal route for stalled projects to move from regulatory intervention to financial and technical assessment, selection of a completion entity and monitored revival, with the stated objective of safeguarding allottees and facilitating completion of unfinished developments.

Gujarat RERA moves to initiate proceedings under Section 8 of RERA Act over stalled WTC GIFT City project

 

Gujarat RERA Moves Toward Section 8 Intervention in WTC GIFT City Projects

The Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority (GujRERA) has issued a public notice GujRERA/Regulatory/WTC Tower-A, B & D/10318/2026 dated 21.09.2026 proposing proceedings under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act in connection with the stalled WTC GIFT Tower A, B & D project at GIFT City, Gandhinagar.

The two public notices, issued in August and September 2026 respectively, involve the same promoter, WTC Noida Development Company Private Limited, and cite prolonged delays in construction, complaints from allottees and concerns relating to the promoter and the projects.

Tower C: 311 of 312 units booked, construction only 28%

In its public notice dated August 17, 2026, GujRERA said the registered completion date for WTC GIFT Tower C had expired on June 30, 2025. The project had originally been scheduled for completion on June 30, 2024, followed by an extension declared by the promoter.

According to the notice, the promoter had not completed construction or submitted the required project-end compliance report. A quarterly progress report submitted in April 2024 indicated that only around 28% of Tower C had been constructed.

The project comprises 312 units, of which 311 had been booked, leaving only one unit shown as pending booking.

GujRERA also stated that several complaints had been received, principally concerning completion of construction and delivery of possession. The authority further referred to alleged financial irregularities and said it had earlier written to Axis Bank for monitoring withdrawals from the project's RERA bank account.

The notice also records investigations by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Directorate of Enforcement concerning the promoter.

Tower C faces lease and development-rights complications

The Tower C notice further states that the GIFT Authority cancelled the lease agreement with the promoter on June 4, 2025. According to the notice, the promoter therefore did not possess development rights over the project site until any further order.

The notice also refers to proceedings before the Delhi High Court concerning use of the “WTC” trademark.

A majority of Tower C allottees have formed the Gandhinagar Gift City (Tower-C Members) Housing and Commercial Co-operative Service Society Ltd. The authority said allottees had sought regulatory intervention so that construction could resume and possession could eventually be handed over.

Towers A, B & D: 1,168 of 1,188 units booked

A second public notice, dated September 21, 2026, concerns WTC GIFT Towers A, B & D.

The project originally had a completion date of June 30, 2023, which was later revised to June 30, 2024. The promoter subsequently submitted an incomplete application seeking another extension, but the application could not be approved because of deficiencies.

The notice says the project remained incomplete after the revised deadline and that the promoter had not filed the project-end compliance report.

The project contains 1,188 units, of which 1,168 had been booked, leaving 20 units shown as pending booking.

The authority noted that Part Occupation Certificates had already been issued for Towers A and D in June 2020, while structural work on Tower B had been completed. A promoter-submitted progress report from April 2024 showed approximately 79% construction completion for Tower B.

Earlier RERA order and lack of compliance cited

For Towers A, B & D, GujRERA said it had passed a common order on March 24, 2026, primarily directing the promoter to complete the project.

The latest notice states that no action appeared to have been initiated by the promoter to comply with those directions and that no appeal had been filed against the order before the appellate tribunal.

The notice also refers to investigations by the SFIO and Directorate of Enforcement and records the cancellation of the promoter's lease agreement by the GIFT Authority in June 2025.

Allottee association formed for Tower B

The notice states that a majority of the allottees of Tower B had formed The Trade Centre (Tower-B) Co-Op Housing and Commercial Society Limited, registered in May 2026.

According to the notice, allottees had approached the authority seeking intervention after waiting for possession for a prolonged period.

RERA accounts frozen, fresh bookings stopped

In both cases, GujRERA has taken immediate regulatory measures while considering Section 8 proceedings.

The authority has ordered the respective RERA bank accounts to be frozen, prohibited the promoter from accepting fresh bookings and revoked the promoter's access to the Gujarat RERA portal.

The promoter has also been directed to provide documents including an updated allottee list, latest audited project financial statements, details of unsold inventory and information on encumbrances, project loans and outstanding liabilities.

Section 8 process could determine how projects are completed

The notices are significant because they move the two WTC projects toward the regulatory mechanism under Section 8 of RERA, which permits the authority, in circumstances covered by the Act, to arrange for remaining development work through an appropriate mechanism.

The notices do not themselves announce appointment of a new developer or final takeover of the projects. Instead, GujRERA is inviting objections and claims before taking a final decision.

For WTC GIFT Towers A, B & D, objections and claims were invited until November 2, 2026. The Tower C notice provides a 30-day period from publication of the notice.

The combined action indicates that the authority is moving beyond simply recording construction delays and is examining a structured intervention aimed at completing the remaining work and addressing the interests of hundreds of existing allottees.

For the two projects together, the notices record 1,479 booked units out of 1,500 total units — 311 of 312 in Tower C and 1,168 of 1,188 in Towers A, B & D — underscoring the scale of the allottee interest involved.

Stilt Parking Is Not Saleable Area; Promoter Cannot Separately Charge Homebuyer For Stilt Parking: TNREAT Upholds ₹2.36 Lakh Refund Against Arun Excello

 

M/s. Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.

Case: M/s. Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.
Case No.: Appeal No. 31 of 2026 & M.A. No. 95 of 2026
Forum: Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT)
Decision: 16 September 2026

Key issue: Whether a promoter can separately charge a homebuyer for a car-parking space situated in the stilt area of a residential project.

Facts: Meenakshi S. booked Flat No. 4419 in Block No. 4 of Arun Excello's Compact Homes – Narmada project at Singaperumal Koil, Chennai. An amount of ₹2.36 lakh was separately collected towards “Covered Parking (Including GST)” under the allotment letter. The homebuyer challenged the parking charge before TNRERA.

TNRERA directed Arun Excello to refund the ₹2.36 lakh with interest. The promoter appealed before TNREAT, contending, inter alia, that it had not sold any exclusive parking space and that the amount represented costs associated with the amenities/project.

Findings of TNREAT

TNREAT dismissed the promoter's appeal and upheld the refund. The Tribunal found that:

1. The allotment letter separately identified ₹2.36 lakh as the charge for covered parking.

2. The construction agreement did not include this amount as part of the construction cost.

3. The parking in question was situated in the stilt area.

4. A stilt parking space is not a separately saleable area, and therefore the promoter could not separately sell or charge the allottee for it.

The Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., concerning the legal status of stilt parking.

Ratio

A promoter cannot separately sell or charge a homebuyer for a stilt parking space, since such parking is not a saleable area. Where the documentary record establishes that a separate amount was collected towards stilt parking, the amount is liable to be refunded with interest.

Practical significance

The decision reiterates the distinction between legitimate recovery of project/amenity costs and the sale of a specific stilt parking space. Merely describing the amount as an amenity or project-related charge will not protect the promoter where the allotment documentation demonstrates that a specific amount was separately collected towards covered/stilt parking.

TNREAT also permitted Meenakshi to withdraw the ₹3.88 lakh pre-deposit made by the promoter under Section 43(5) of RERA, together with accrued interest, if any. 

Rajasthan RERA Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation After Promoter Retains Booking Amount Following Cancellation of Allotment

 

Rajasthan RERA Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation After Promoter Retains Booking Amount Following Cancellation of Allotment

Case: Seema Devi & Ors. v. Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No.: RAJ-RERA-C-O-2024-7211
Forum: Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rajasthan RERA)

The matter concerned cancellation of allotment and retention of the booking amount by the promoter, Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd. The Rajasthan RERA considered whether the homebuyers were entitled to compensation where the promoter had retained the booking amount for a prolonged period following cancellation.

Background

Seema Devi and the other complainants had booked units in a project of Ravi Surya Affordable Homes. The dispute arose after the allotment was cancelled and the promoter retained the amount deposited by the complainants.

The Rajasthan RERA considered the nature and extent of the financial loss suffered by the complainants, particularly because the amount retained by the promoter consisted only of the booking amount, rather than a substantial part of the sale consideration. 

Finding of Rajasthan RERA

The Authority held that retention of the booking amount for such a period caused tangible financial loss to the complainants and resulted in an element of undue enrichment to the promoter.

The Authority observed that, had the promoter borrowed an equivalent amount from the market, it would ordinarily have incurred an interest liability. Therefore, although the case could not be treated in the same manner as a normal refund case involving substantial payments towards the sale consideration, the complainants were nevertheless entitled to reasonable compensation for the financial loss suffered.

Compensation awarded

The Authority awarded a total of ₹1 lakh to the complainants, comprising:

• ₹80,000 towards financial loss; and

• ₹20,000 towards physical and mental agony and litigation expenses.

Ravi Surya Affordable Homes was directed to pay the amount within 45 days. In case of default, the amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from 16 September 2026 until payment. 

Important RERA proposition

Even where the promoter has retained only the booking amount, prolonged retention following cancellation of allotment may justify compensation for the financial loss caused to the allottee; the quantum of compensation may, however, be assessed differently from cases involving refund of substantial sale consideration.

Significance

The case is useful for the proposition that compensation under RERA is not necessarily confined to cases where a substantial portion of the apartment's consideration has been paid. Where the promoter retains a booking amount for an extended period, the Authority may consider the resulting financial loss and other consequences while determining appropriate compensation. 

MahaREAT Rejects 266-Day Delay Condonation Plea, Holds Litigant Cannot Shift Entire Blame to Advocate

 

MahaREAT Rejects 266-Day Delay Condonation Plea, Holds Litigant Cannot Shift Entire Blame to Advocate

Case: Shashank Vengasarkar & Anr. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case No.: M.A. No. 1357/26 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT06/00334/2026
Arising from: Complaint No. CC006000000354526
Forum: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)
Decision: 10 September 2026

Background

The appellants were homebuyers who had purchased a flat from Larsen & Toubro Ltd. under an Agreement for Sale dated 7 December 2016. Possession was handed over on 20 July 2018. They subsequently filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking interest for alleged delay in possession.

MahaRERA dismissed their complaint on 3 April 2025. The limitation period for filing an appeal expired on 2 June 2025, but the appellants filed the appeal only on 23 February 2026, resulting in a 266-day delay.

Grounds for seeking condonation

The homebuyers submitted that:

• they had not received the email communicating the MahaRERA order;

• they came to know about the order only on 17 February 2026, when they met their advocate after returning to India;

• they were residing outside India for substantial periods; and

• their earlier advocate had failed to properly follow up on the proceedings.

They therefore sought condonation of the 266-day delay. 

Finding of MahaREAT

MahaREAT rejected the application.

The Tribunal held that a litigant cannot place the entire responsibility for the conduct of litigation upon an advocate. A party is expected to remain vigilant regarding proceedings initiated by them and cannot rely entirely upon the advocate to monitor the case.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances relied upon by the appellants—including their residence outside India and alleged difficulties in communicating with their advocate—did not adequately explain such an inordinate delay.

The Tribunal further observed that negligence, inaction or lack of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause merely because a liberal approach is generally adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay.

Important legal principle

The Tribunal relied upon decisions including Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, S.R. Vediappan v. S.P. Ramalingam, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector, reiterating that condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation demonstrating sufficient cause and reasonable diligence.

Conclusion

The 266-day delay was not condoned, and the application filed by the homebuyers was dismissed.

Key RERA proposition:

A litigant seeking condonation of substantial delay cannot attribute the entire lapse to the advocate; the party must demonstrate reasonable diligence and provide a convincing explanation constituting sufficient cause for the delay.

Builder Cannot Terminate Allotment for Non-Payment Without First Executing and Registering Agreement for Sale: MahaREAT

 

Builder Cannot Terminate Allotment for Non-Payment Without First Executing and Registering Agreement for Sale: MahaREAT

Case: Manojkumar Singh v. Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal No.: AT006000000204882 of 2024
Arising from: Complaint No. CC006000000282178 of 2019
Forum: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)
Decision: 7 September 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 65

The dispute concerned a homebuyer whose allotment was terminated by Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on the ground of non-payment. MahaREAT held that the promoter could not rely upon the allottee's alleged default when the promoter itself had failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 13 of the RERA Act.

Key issue

Section 13 of RERA prohibits a promoter from accepting more than 10% of the cost of the apartment, plot or building as advance/application fee without first entering into a written Agreement for Sale and registering it under the applicable law.

The Tribunal found that the promoter had accepted amounts exceeding the statutory 10% threshold but had not executed and registered the Agreement for Sale.

Finding of MahaREAT

The Tribunal held that a promoter cannot terminate an allotment for alleged non-payment when the promoter itself has failed to execute the Agreement for Sale, as required under Section 13.

In other words, the promoter cannot simultaneously:

• accept more than 10% of the consideration without a registered Agreement for Sale;

• fail to comply with Section 13; and

• thereafter rely upon the allottee's failure to make further payments to terminate the allotment.

The Tribunal further held that the promoter's continuing failure to execute the Agreement for Sale amounted to a violation of Section 13 and constituted an unfair trade practice, attracting penalty under Section 61 of RERA.

Relief granted

MahaREAT allowed the homebuyer's appeal, set aside the MahaRERA order and directed the promoter to:

• refund ₹80.77 lakh to the homebuyer;

• pay interest on ₹1.008 crore at 2% above SBI's highest MCLR for the specified period;

• pay interest on the balance refund amount for the subsequent period up to the date of the order;

• pay a ₹10 lakh penalty under Section 61 for violation of Section 13; and

• pay ₹50,000 as costs.

Important RERA proposition

A promoter cannot take advantage of an allottee's alleged payment default to terminate the allotment when the promoter itself has failed to execute and register the Agreement for Sale after accepting more than 10% of the consideration, in violation of Section 13 of RERA.

This judgment is particularly relevant for cases involving cancellation/termination of allotment, payment defaults, Section 13 compliance, and the promoter's obligation to execute a registered Agreement for Sale.

Telangana REAT Holds That Extension of Project Registration Does Not Automatically Extend Contractual Possession Date

 

Telangana REAT Holds That Extension of Project Registration Does Not Automatically Extend Contractual Possession Date

Case: M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi & Connected Matters
Case Nos.: T.A. Nos. 17 to 47 of 2026
Forum: Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TSREAT)
Decision: 9 September 2026

The appeals arose from 31 complaints filed by homebuyers concerning the promoter's project “Vasavi Lake City-West” at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad. The Telangana RERA had directed the promoter to pay interest for delayed possession and to complete the project and hand over possession.

Background

The homebuyers had entered into agreements of sale with Vasavi Realtors in 2022. Under those agreements, possession was to be delivered by 31 August 2024, with a six-month grace period extending the date to 28 February 2025, subject to the applicable force-majeure provision.

The promoter subsequently obtained an extension of the RERA registration of the project. It contended that this extension should also affect the possession timeline.

The homebuyers, however, approached Telangana RERA after possession was not delivered within the agreed period.

Finding of the Telangana REAT

The Tribunal rejected the contention that an extension of RERA registration automatically extends the contractual possession date.

It held, in substance, that:

Extension of registration of a project does not, by itself, extend the possession date agreed between the promoter and the homebuyer.

The Tribunal treated the Agreement of Sale as a legally enforceable contract and held that the promoter could not unilaterally alter the agreed possession date. A change in that date would require agreement between the parties.

COVID-19 defence

The promoter also sought to rely upon the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification for the delay.

The Tribunal did not accept this contention because the agreements in question were executed after the lockdown periods, and they themselves stipulated specific possession timelines. The promoter therefore could not retrospectively rely upon COVID-19 to avoid its contractual and statutory liability for delay.

Interest for delayed possession

Telangana RERA had directed the promoter to pay interest at 10.70% per annum on the amounts actually paid by the respective homebuyers, calculated from 1 March 2025 until lawful possession was handed over.

The REAT found no illegality or procedural irregularity in these directions and confirmed the orders passed by Telangana RERA.

Important RERA proposition

The judgment is useful for the proposition that:

An extension granted by RERA to the validity/registration period of a real estate project does not automatically modify the possession date contractually agreed between the promoter and the allottee.

Thus, regulatory extension of project registration and contractual extension of possession are distinct matters. Unless the possession date is validly altered with the consent of the parties or otherwise justified under the governing contractual/statutory provisions, the original contractual date continues to be relevant for determining delay under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

Final outcome

The Telangana REAT dismissed all 31 appeals filed by Vasavi Realtors LLP and upheld Telangana RERA's orders directing payment of delay interest and completion/handing over of the project.

Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.50 Lakh Penalty Against Promoter for Additional Clubhouse Floor and Revised Plan Without Allottees’ Consent

Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.50 Lakh Penalty Against Promoter for Additional Clubhouse Floor and Revised Plan Without Allottees’ Consent

Case: Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP & Ors. v. Neelima Vanguru
Case No.: T.A. No. 35 of 2024
Forum: Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TSREAT)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 69

The Telangana REAT dismissed the promoter’s appeal and upheld the ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed by TG RERA in relation to an additional floor constructed in the project’s clubhouse/amenities block. 

Background

The dispute concerned the Trendset Jayabheri Elevate project at Kondapur, Hyderabad. The project is registered with Telangana RERA as P02400000452. 

The allottee, Neelima Vanguru, alleged that the promoter had:

• obtained a revised sanctioned plan without obtaining the requisite consent of the allottees;

• failed to upload/disclose the revised plan to the allottees as required under RERA; and

• constructed an additional floor in the clubhouse/amenities block.

Findings of Telangana REAT

The Tribunal noted that the original building permission showed the amenities block as Ground + 2 floors. Subsequently, another building permit dated 25 May 2023 reflected the amenities block as Ground + 3 upper floors.

The Tribunal found that the promoter had not uploaded the revised sanctioned plan, amounting to a violation of Section 11(3) of the RERA Act, which requires the promoter to make relevant sanctioned plans and revisions available to allottees.

More importantly, the Tribunal held that the promoter had not obtained the consent of two-thirds of the allottees before obtaining the revised sanctioned plan, thereby violating Section 14(2) of RERA. 

Section 14(2) — significance

Section 14(2) restricts a promoter from making alterations or additions in the sanctioned plans and specifications except in accordance with the statutory requirements, including obtaining the consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees for material alterations/additions.

The Tribunal therefore rejected the promoter's contention that the additional clubhouse floor was merely a minor deviation which benefited allottees and did not impose any additional financial burden upon them. 

Section 11(4)(f) and common areas

The Tribunal also relied upon Section 11(4)(f) read with Section 17, observing that the promoter was required to convey the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of allottees.

The clubhouse, including the additional floor, formed part of the common amenities/common areas. Consequently, the promoter could not treat the alteration as inconsequential merely because it did not result in an additional charge to the allottees. 

Final decision

The Telangana REAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed by TG RERA. It found the RERA order to be legally sustainable and based on appreciation of the facts and applicable provisions of RERA.

Key RERA proposition

A promoter cannot avoid the requirement of obtaining the requisite consent under Section 14(2) merely by characterising a deviation in the sanctioned plan as minor or beneficial to the allottees. Failure to disclose the revised sanctioned plan may independently constitute a violation of Section 11(3).

This case is particularly useful when dealing with unauthorised/revised building plans, alterations in common amenities, clubhouse modifications, and the requirement of two-thirds allottees' consent under Section 14(2) of RERA. (Live Law 

Calcutta High Court Seeks Timeline From West Bengal Government For Filling Vacancies In WBRERA And WBREAT

Calcutta High Court Seeks Timeline From West Bengal Government For Filling Vacancies In WBRERA And WBREAT

Rahul Parasrampuria v. The State of West Bengal & Others

Case: Rahul Parasrampuria v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: WPA (P) 427 of 2026
Court: Calcutta High Court
Subject: Vacancies in West Bengal RERA and Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT)

The matter concerns a Public Interest Litigation seeking expeditious filling of vacancies in the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA) and the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT).

Background

The petitioner, Rahul Parasrampuria, approached the Calcutta High Court seeking directions for completion of the selection and appointment process for vacant statutory posts, particularly:

• the Judicial Member of WBREAT; and
• a Member of WBRERA.

The petition also sought disclosure of the status of the selection process, the reasons for delay, relevant selection records, and information concerning the vacancies, pending cases and functioning of the two RERA institutions.

Order dated 15 September 2026

On 15 September 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra directed the office of the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, to file a report specifying:

1. the present stage of filling the vacancies of Chairperson and Judicial Member of WBREAT and Member of WBRERA; and
2. the time limit within which the vacancies would be filled.

The Court also permitted the petitioner to implead the Chief Secretary as a respondent. The matter has been listed for further consideration on 29 September 2026.

Significance from the RERA perspective

The PIL raises an important institutional issue concerning the effective functioning of the specialised RERA dispute-resolution mechanism. The petitioner's case is that prolonged vacancies in WBRERA and WBREAT can result in delays for homebuyers, promoters and other stakeholders and may compel litigants to approach constitutional courts for matters intended to be dealt with by specialised RERA forums. These are the petitioner's contentions, rather than findings finally adjudicated by the Court.

In short: The Calcutta High Court has sought a definite timeline from the West Bengal Government for filling vacancies in WBRERA and WBREAT, with the matter next listed on 29 September 2026

Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr.
Case No.: MA No. 105 of 2025
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Coram: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) where the complaint discloses a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the expression “aggrieved person” occurring in Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 35 of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, is of wide amplitude. The Court held that merely because there is no written document evidencing the allotment of a real estate property or an agreement between the parties, RERA's jurisdiction cannot automatically be excluded.

The dispute arose out of a complaint filed by Y.P. Goel and Associates, alleging that Fortune Resources and Properties LLP had entered into an oral arrangement for allotment and sale of Shop No. J-03, measuring 1,280 sq. ft., at Rama World, High Street, Swarn Bhoomi, Raipur, for a consideration of ₹75 lakh.

The complainant alleged that it had paid ₹5 lakh on December 31, 2020, ₹10 lakh on February 3, 2021 and a further ₹10 lakh on September 6, 2022 towards the proposed transaction. It was further alleged that despite the payments, possession of the shop was not handed over and no sale deed was executed. According to the complainant, the amount of ₹25 lakh was ultimately returned after approximately three years.

After a legal notice was issued on April 5, 2024, Fortune Resources denied the existence of any oral agreement and disputed the alleged allotment of the shop.

RERA, by its order dated July 31, 2024, dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties and that the material on record did not clearly establish payment of sale consideration in respect of the alleged transaction. RERA consequently held that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction under the RERA Act.

The complainant thereafter approached the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). By order dated April 4, 2025, the Tribunal set aside RERA's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that an oral agreement could be examined within the RERA framework and that the complainant could fall within the expression “aggrieved person”.

Fortune Resources challenged the REAT's order before the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act. It contended that mere payment or deposit of money could not confer the status of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act. According to the appellant, there had to be an application or request for allotment, its acceptance by the promoter and a consequential allotment.

The High Court, however, found that RERA had considered the matter primarily from the perspective of the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) without adequately considering the scope of Section 31, which enables an aggrieved person to approach the Authority in respect of a violation or contravention of the Act, rules or regulations.

The Court noted that the pleadings disclosed a transaction involving payment of money in connection with the alleged allotment and sale of the shop. It observed that the existence and nature of such transaction required appropriate consideration and could not be rejected merely because there was no written allotment document or agreement.

The Court also noted that RERA's order did not indicate whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, including the calling for relevant documents or evidence, had been followed. According to the Court, the Authority ought to have undertaken the requisite enquiry before reaching a conclusion on the complaint.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeal. It directed RERA to reconsider and decide the complaint in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 55 of the REAT's order and in accordance with law.

Key Takeaway

The judgment reiterates that the absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale is not, by itself, sufficient to exclude RERA's jurisdiction. Where the pleadings disclose a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset, the Authority must examine the material and conduct the appropriate enquiry before determining whether the complainant is entitled to relief under the RERA Act.

2/3rd Allottee Consent Under Section 14(2) of RERA Required Only for Alterations Beyond the Development Agreed Under the Agreement for Sale: K-RERA”

 

2/3rd Allottee Consent Under Section 14(2) of RERA Required Only for Alterations Beyond the Development Agreed Under the Agreement for Sale: K-RERA

Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited

Case: Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited
Forum: Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA)
Complaint No.: 00772/2025

The matter concerned a complaint by the Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association against L&T Realty Developers Limited in relation to alleged unauthorised modifications and commercial development associated with the project. The Association sought, inter alia, revocation of the promoter's project registration and demolition of the commercial buildings.

Key finding

K-RERA held that the requirement of obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the allottees under Section 14(2) of the RERA Act is attracted only where the proposed alteration is beyond what was mutually agreed between the promoter and the allottees under the agreement/sale documents.

In other words, not every change or alteration in a real estate project automatically requires consent of two-thirds of the allottees. The first question is whether the proposed change goes beyond the development that was contractually agreed with the allottees.

K-RERA relied upon an earlier appellate tribunal ruling in reaching this conclusion. The Authority consequently dismissed the Association's complaint seeking revocation of registration and demolition.

Legal proposition

The decision can be usefully stated as:

The statutory requirement of consent of two-thirds of the allottees is triggered when the promoter proposes an alteration which goes beyond what was mutually agreed under the agreement for sale; the mere existence of an alteration does not, by itself, attract Section 14(2).

Relevance under RERA

The ruling is particularly relevant when dealing with allegations concerning:

1. change in sanctioned plans;
2. alteration/addition to the project;
3. development of commercial components;
4. demolition/removal of structures;
5. whether 2/3rd allottee consent is mandatory; and
6. the scope of Section 14(2) of the RERA Act.

The decision also illustrates the importance of examining the agreement for sale and the original contractual representation regarding the project, rather than treating every subsequent modification as requiring statutory consent.

ORERA Establishes Conciliation and Dispute Resolution Cell for Amicable Settlement of RERA Disputes

ORERA Establishes Conciliation and Dispute Resolution Cell for Amicable Settlement of RERA Disputes

The Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) has established a Conciliation and Dispute Resolution (CDR) Cell and issued operational guidelines for resolving disputes between homebuyers, promoters and real estate agents through conciliation.

The CDR Cell will function as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to facilitate amicable settlement of disputes arising under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Disputes falling within the scope of the Act may be referred to the Cell either by ORERA or upon an application made by any of the parties.

ORERA may refer a complaint to the CDR Cell, with the consent of both parties, where it is satisfied that there is a genuine possibility of resolving the dispute through conciliation. A party seeking conciliation is required to submit an application, which is then communicated to the opposite party by post or email. The opposite party must communicate its consent within seven days of receiving the communication.

Upon receipt of consent, the applicant is required to deposit ₹500 with the Secretary, ORERA, following which the matter is referred to the CDR Cell. The parties are thereafter informed of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The Cell is required to endeavour to resolve the dispute within two months.

The guidelines require both parties to remain present at the hearing. Where the parties arrive at a settlement, the terms must be reduced to writing and signed by both parties. The resulting consent agreement is binding upon the parties and persons concerned. Any failure to comply with such binding settlement may be taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings before ORERA.

Where conciliation fails and the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the matter is to be forwarded to ORERA or the appropriate court, as applicable.

ORERA Chairman Asit Kumar Mohapatra stated that legal experts would be appointed to assist the CDR Cell. He also noted that previous attempts to establish a similar mechanism in Odisha had not become operational, including an initiative undertaken in January of the previous year due to the absence of requisite government approval. The Authority subsequently examined successful conciliation models adopted in other States, including Maharashtra, while formulating the present mechanism.

Key Takeaway: The ORERA CDR Cell provides a structured conciliation mechanism for promoters, agents and allottees to seek an amicable resolution of RERA disputes, with settlements recorded through binding consent agreements and unresolved matters capable of being pursued before the appropriate forum.

Builder Bound by Its Own Assurances of Earlier Possession; Cannot Rely on Distant Contractual Date: TNRERA

Builder Bound by Its Own Assurances of Earlier Possession; Cannot Rely on Distant Contractual Date: TNRERA

Case Title: Namasivayam v. Casa Grande Smart Values Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: R.C.P. No. 107 of 2025
Date of Decision: 3 September 2026

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA), comprising Chairperson K. Phanindra Reddy and Members A. Nazir Ahamed and Reeta Harish Thakkar, held that a promoter cannot rely solely upon a distant possession date stipulated in the agreement when it has subsequently made a specific commitment to hand over possession on an earlier date through its own communications.

The complainant had booked a villa in the Casagrand Divinity Project, Chengalpattu, for approximately ₹1.91 crore and had paid more than ₹1.58 crore in 2023, partly through a housing loan obtained from the State Bank of India. Although the agreement contemplated completion by April 2027, the promoter subsequently communicated to the complainant that possession would be handed over by December 2023, with a grace period extending up to March 2024.

The promoter subsequently extended the promised date to April 2024, citing floods, but cancelled the complainant's booking in February 2024 on the ground that certain dues remained unpaid. The promoter contended that April 2027 was the only binding contractual date and that its communications regarding earlier possession were merely tentative estimates. It further alleged that the complainant was himself in default and therefore could not claim compensation under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016.

TNRERA rejected this contention and observed that the complainant was entitled to rely upon the promoter's specific representations regarding the earlier date of handover. Significantly, the project obtained its Completion Certificate only in November 2024, demonstrating that possession could not have been delivered even by the subsequently promised date of April 2024.

The Authority accordingly held that the promoter's failure to honour its commitment attracted liability for delay and that the complainant was entitled to interest from March 2024 until actual handing over of possession in April 2026, pursuant to the earlier directions of the Authority.

The promoter was directed to pay interest at 10.90% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant, together with ₹25,000 towards litigation costs, within 30 days.

Key Takeaway: A promoter may be held to an earlier possession commitment communicated to the allottee, notwithstanding a later contractual possession date, particularly where the promoter's own subsequent conduct demonstrates that the earlier commitment could not be fulfilled.

UP-RERA Introduces Digital Filing of Professional Certificates Along with QPRs

UP-RERA Introduces Digital Filing of Professional Certificates Along with QPRs

UP-RERA has introduced through a notifiation letter/9478/UP-RERA/tak-cell/2026-27 dated 12.09.2026 a digital filing system for Architect (REG-1), Engineer (REG-2) and Chartered Accountant (REG-3) certificates accompanying Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs), as part of the transition to the UP-RERA 2.0 portal.

Under the new system, the three certificates will be filed sequentially through structured digital forms and authenticated with the respective professionals’ Digital Signature Certificates (DSCs). The QPR can be finalized only after all three certificates have been submitted. The digital system also auto-populates core project details and requires consistency with previous-quarter filings.

The initiative is intended to improve the accuracy, verifiability and real-time monitoring of project progress and fund utilisation, while reducing inconsistencies arising from separate PDF uploads.

Effective from the quarter ending September 2026, digital submission of these certificates is mandatory. 

LINK : - https://www.up-rera.in/pdf/Digital-QPR.pdf

Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) RERA Is a Condition Precedent for Maintainability of Promoter’s Appeal: Haryana REAT

Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) RERA Is a Condition Precedent for Maintainability of Promoter’s Appeal: Haryana REAT

Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Switi Gupta & Anr. — Haryana REAT (H-REAT-31-2026)

 Date of Decision 14-Aug-2026

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT), by order dated 14 August 2026, dismissed two appeals filed by Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016.

The appeals challenged a HRERA Gurugram order dated 8 July 2025, which directed the promoter to pay delayed possession charges at 11.10% p.a. on the amounts paid by the allottees from the contractual possession date of 30 April 2022 until the offer of possession plus two months. The Authority also directed revision of the account statement, payment of specified utility charges, execution of the conveyance deed, and prohibited the promoter from levying holding charges.

The promoter argued that the allottees themselves owed approximately ₹55.22 lakh, whereas the delayed-possession interest payable by the promoter was ₹5.53 lakh. It therefore contended that the outstanding amount payable by the allottees should be adjusted against the statutory pre-deposit.

HREAT rejected this contention, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., holding that where a promoter challenges an order involving payment to an allottee, the promoter must make the requisite statutory pre-deposit before the appeal can be entertained. There is no provision for waiver or exemption from the pre-deposit requirement.

The Tribunal further observed that the pre-deposit is intended to secure the interest of the allottee. The amount is kept in a fixed deposit and carries interest, with disbursement being subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Therefore, the promoter's argument for adjustment could not dispense with the statutory requirement.

Held

Since the promoter had failed to make the required ₹5,53,544 pre-deposit, the appeals were held not maintainable and were dismissed without examination on merits. However, the promoter was given liberty to seek revival of the appeals if the requisite pre-deposit was made within one month.

Key takeaway: A promoter cannot avoid or seek adjustment of the mandatory Section 43(5) pre-deposit on the ground that the allottee owes money to the promoter. Compliance with the statutory pre-deposit is a condition precedent for maintainability of the promoter's appeal. 

RERA Review Powers Are Limited; Review Cannot Be Used to Rehear a Matter on Merits: MP REAT

RERA Review Powers Are Limited; Review Cannot Be Used to Rehear a Matter on Merits: MP REAT

Title: Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Aarti Soni & Anr.

The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) recently dismissed a review petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, reiterating that the power of review is limited and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.

The Tribunal held that review is maintainable only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new material/evidence, or another sufficient reason. A party cannot seek a rehearing of the matter merely because it is dissatisfied with the earlier appellate decision.

The Authority contended that subsequent action taken under Section 59 of RERA, including imposition of a ₹1 lakh fine, demonstrated compliance with the earlier directions. The Tribunal, however, found that the subsequent penalty did not establish effective compliance with the earlier order and that the requirements arising under Sections 7 and 8 of RERA continued to remain unfulfilled.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no ground for review, dismissed the review petition and directed the Authority to proceed with compliance after affording the concerned parties an opportunity of hearing.

Key takeaway: A review petition under RERA cannot be used to reopen the merits of a reasoned appellate order. Subsequent regulatory action will not, by itself, establish an error in the original decision or cure continuing non-compliance with statutory directions. 

MahaREAT Allows Homebuyers to Withdraw Statutory Pre-Deposit in Cases of Prolonged Possession Delay and Financial Hardship

MahaREAT Allows Homebuyers to Withdraw Statutory Pre-Deposit in Cases of Prolonged Possession Delay and Financial Hardship

Case Title :  Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Ketan Ashokrao Nage & Connected Matters Case Number :  M.A. Nos. 1123/26, 1723/26, 1178/26, 1124/26, 1125/26, 691/26 & 712/26 in connected appeals

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has permitted two homebuyers to withdraw amounts deposited by the promoter, Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd., towards the mandatory pre-deposit required for its appeals under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The Tribunal, comprising Justice S.S. Shinde, Chairperson, and Shrikant M. Deshpande, Administrative Member, considered applications filed by eight homebuyers seeking withdrawal of amounts deposited by the promoter pursuant to the orders passed by the MahaRERA.

The underlying proceedings arose from a MahaRERA order dated 8 May 2025, whereby the promoter was directed, inter alia, to pay interest to several homebuyers for delay in handing over possession from the respective contractual possession dates until the date of possession along with the Occupancy Certificate. Refunds were also directed in respect of certain homebuyers.

The promoter challenged the MahaRERA order before MahaREAT and deposited the amounts required under Section 43(5) of RERA as a condition for maintaining the appeals.

The homebuyers thereafter sought withdrawal of the amounts deposited in the respective appeals. While six applications were rejected, MahaREAT allowed the applications of two homebuyers on account of the exceptional financial hardship caused by prolonged delay in possession.

In one case, the Tribunal noted that the project had remained incomplete for more than four years, requiring the homebuyer to continue residing in rented accommodation while simultaneously servicing the home loan. The Tribunal observed:

“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.”

The promoter contended that payment of EMI was an obligation that would have continued even after possession and, therefore, could not constitute a sufficient ground for release of the pre-deposit. The Tribunal, however, accepted the homebuyer's contention regarding the combined burden of EMI and rent arising from the prolonged delay in possession.

In the second case, possession was contractually due by 31 December 2014. The homebuyer had already paid approximately 92.8% of the consideration through an HDFC Bank loan and had been bearing the burden of both EMI payments and rent for approximately 10 years. MahaREAT considered the prolonged delay and the resulting financial hardship sufficient to justify release of the deposited amount.

Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted withdrawal of ₹12,33,145 and ₹53,99,195, respectively, together with accrued interest.

At the same time, MahaREAT emphasised that the statutory pre-deposit ordinarily remains custodia legis, i.e. in the custody of the law, during the pendency of the appeal. Mere pendency of an appeal does not ordinarily entitle a homebuyer to withdraw the amount. The Tribunal held that exceptional or compelling circumstances must be demonstrated.

Thus, applications based merely on general financial difficulties, investment of life savings or alleged financial losses were not accepted where the grounds were considered generic. Similarly, where appeals had been dismissed but the applicants failed to establish a specific compelling circumstance warranting release, the amounts were not permitted to be withdrawn.

The withdrawals in the two successful cases were also made subject to an undertaking by the homebuyers to refund the amounts with interest if the promoter ultimately succeeds in the appeals.

Key Principle

The decision indicates that while the Section 43(5) pre-deposit is ordinarily protected during the pendency of an appeal, MahaREAT may permit its withdrawal in exceptional cases where prolonged delay in possession creates demonstrable and continuing financial hardship, particularly where the homebuyer is compelled to bear both housing-loan EMIs and rent for an extended period.

Importantly, the Tribunal did not treat financial hardship as an automatic ground for release. The distinction drawn was between generic financial hardship and circumstances demonstrating a specific, prolonged and continuing hardship attributable to delayed possession.

If you are preparing this for a RERA case-law compilation/commentary, I can also convert it into a concise “Held / Ratio / Key Takeaway” case-note format, including the case title, appeal/application numbers, date of judgment and relevant statutory provisions.

Co-operative Society Without Land or Layout for Real Estate Project Not a Promoter Under RERA: Karnataka REAT

Case Title: V. Suresh Kumar v. BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. (K-REAT) 3/2026

The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Karnataka REAT) has held that a housing co-operative society that had neither acquired land for development nor undertaken any real estate project could not be treated as a “Promoter” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).

The Tribunal consequently held that a complaint seeking relief under RERA was not maintainable before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, as the complainant could not be treated as an “Allottee” and the society did not fall within the statutory definition of a “Promoter.”

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. dismissed an appeal filed against the BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and upheld the order of Karnataka RERA dismissing the complaint.

No Land Acquired, No Real Estate Project

The Tribunal observed:

“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.”

The appellant had worked with BSNL for more than 18 years and had become a member of the society, which was formed by BSNL employees with the objective of providing houses or residential plots to its members at relatively lower rates.

According to the appellant, the society represented that sites were available at Madhavanagara and accepted payments towards the proposed BSNL Madhavanagara Project Phase-II, situated off Nelamangala Road.

The appellant paid an aggregate amount of ₹7,66,800 in 2013 and 2014 towards the proposed purchase of a site. However, the site was not delivered or registered in his favour. Despite repeated follow-ups seeking a refund, the amount was allegedly neither refunded nor was the promised site registered.

Society Contended RERA Had No Jurisdiction

Before Karnataka RERA, the society contended that the complaint was not maintainable under the RERA Act.

It submitted that the alleged project was not registered with the Authority and that the receipts issued to the appellant did not constitute allotment letters. According to the society, the amounts were not collected towards any identified or specific plot and no Agreement for Sale had been executed between the parties.

The society further maintained that it had not acquired any land for development. Consequently, there was no real estate project within the meaning of the RERA Act and the society could not be regarded as a Promoter.

It also disputed the appellant's status as an Allottee, contending that no plot or apartment had been allotted or transferred to him.

Karnataka RERA accepted these submissions and dismissed the complaint.

Sections 2(d), 2(zk) and 2(zn) of RERA Examined

Challenging the RERA order, the appellant contended before the Tribunal that the Authority had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and relevant provisions of the Act.

He also argued that since the project remained incomplete, he was entitled to relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

The Tribunal examined the statutory framework governing the relationship between a Promoter and an Allottee.

Section 18 provides remedies to an Allottee where a Promoter fails to complete a project or give possession in accordance with the Agreement for Sale. Where an Allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the provision contemplates refund of the amount paid, together with interest and compensation in accordance with the Act.

The Tribunal noted that:

• Section 2(zn) defines a “Real Estate Project” to include development of land into plots or apartments;

• Section 2(zk) defines a “Promoter” to include a person who develops land into plots or apartments; and

• Section 2(d) defines an “Allottee” as a person to whom a plot, apartment or building has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by the Promoter.

Applying these provisions, the Tribunal found that the society had not acquired any land for development and no real estate project was in existence.

Consequently, the society could not be treated as a Promoter and the appellant could not be regarded as an Allottee under the Act.

Membership and Collection of Money Not Sufficient

The Tribunal noted that the society had enrolled members and collected various amounts towards the proposed purchase of sites, which were to be allotted if and when the society developed the requisite project or layout.

However, the mere fact that money had been collected from members towards prospective sites did not, in the circumstances of the case, bring the transaction within the statutory framework of RERA.

The Tribunal therefore agreed with Karnataka RERA that the RERA Act had no application to the dispute and that the complaint was not maintainable before the Authority.

Registration Requirement Cannot Arise Where No Project Exists

The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Newtech and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Macrotech while considering the jurisdictional issue.

It observed that where a project has not been registered, the Authority must first determine whether the project was one that was required to be registered under Section 3 or was exempt from registration. If registration was not required, the Authority could not assume jurisdiction over the complaint merely on the basis of the alleged transaction.

Section 3 generally requires prior registration of a real estate project before a Promoter can advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale any plot, apartment or building, subject to the statutory exemptions and provisions applicable to ongoing projects.

In the present case, however, the issue was more fundamental. The Tribunal found that no project had come into existence at all, since the society had not acquired land for development.

Accordingly, the statutory obligations imposed upon a Promoter and the remedies available to an Allottee could not be invoked against the society.

Alternative Remedies Available

While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal observed that the appellant was not without a remedy. He was free to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Consumer Forum for recovery of the amount paid.

The Tribunal also took note of the fact that counsel appearing for the society had made an offer to refund the amount with 6% interest. The appellant, however, did not accept the offer.

Finding no justifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by Karnataka RERA on September 2, 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

There was no order as to costs.

Key Takeaway

The Karnataka REAT's decision highlights that the applicability of RERA depends upon the existence of the statutory ingredients of a real estate project, Promoter and Allottee. Mere membership of a housing co-operative society and payment of money towards a proposed future site do not, by themselves, establish the existence of a real estate project or confer the status of an Allottee under RERA where the society has neither acquired land nor undertaken development of the project.

Landowner Liable for Project Registration Despite Development Agreement: Rajasthan RERA

Case Title: Suo Motu v. K.D. Developers
Case No.: F.15 (326) RJ/RERA/C/2024 (RAJ-RERA-Suo Motu-2026-77)

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rajasthan RERA) has held that a landowner cannot evade statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) merely because a development agreement assigns construction and other development responsibilities to a developer.

In proceedings concerning the unregistered multi-storey residential project “99 Avenue” in Jaipur, the Authority imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh each on Siddharth Landmark LLP, the developer, and Brajesh Saxena, one of the landowners, for contravention of the registration requirement under Section 3 of the RERA Act. The Authority further directed them to apply for registration of the project within 45 days.

Development Agreement Does Not Extinguish Landowner's Statutory Obligations

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.”

The project, situated at B-99-A, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, comprised 12 residential units. The proceedings arose from a complaint alleging that K.D. Developers was developing the project and had commenced bookings without obtaining the mandatory registration under the RERA Act. It was also alleged that requisite permissions from the Jaipur Development Authority and other competent authorities had not been obtained.

Rajasthan RERA issued a show-cause notice dated September 12, 2024, under Sections 3 and 59 of the Act concerning the failure to register the project. An interim direction under Section 36 was also issued restraining further booking, sale or purchase in relation to the project.

Pursuant to directions issued on March 12, 2025, a site inspection was conducted. The inspection report dated May 5, 2025 recorded the existence of a basement, ground floor and six additional floors. The project comprised 12 residential units spread over approximately 970 square metres. The structural framework had been completed, while interior and exterior works were still in progress.

Landowner's Defence Rejected

The inspection report recorded the involvement of Siddharth Landmark LLP and identified Brajesh Saxena as a landowner.

Saxena admitted that he had executed a Development Agreement dated February 8, 2023. However, he contended that his role was confined to that of a landowner and that he had not participated in the management, promotion, marketing or day-to-day affairs of the project.

The Authority rejected this defence.

The Development Agreement described Saxena as the First Party/Landowner and Siddharth Landmark LLP, through its partners Nischal Bhandari and Pradeep Moolrajani, as the Second Party/Developer. Although the agreement entrusted the developer with construction and the sale of the flats, it also provided for the constructed flats to be divided between the developer and the landowner.

Significantly, Saxena retained a 58.33% share in the flats to be constructed. On this basis, the Authority found that he continued to possess a substantive proprietary interest in the project.

The Authority held that the contractual arrangement between the parties could not override or dilute statutory obligations imposed by the RERA Act. The fact that construction, development and sale-related responsibilities had been assigned to the developer did not, by itself, absolve the landowner from compliance with the statutory registration requirement.

Violation Was Not a Mere Technical Lapse

Rajasthan RERA further held that the contravention could not be characterised as a “mere technical or inadvertent lapse”.

The project was actively under development and comprised 12 residential units, notwithstanding the statutory requirement that the project be registered before commencement of activities falling within Section 3 of the Act.

The Authority accordingly concluded that continued development of the project without registration constituted a “wilful contravention” of Section 3.

Proceedings Against Another Landowner Dropped

The Authority, however, distinguished the position of Kunal Daga, another person identified as a landowner.

Proceedings against Daga were dropped as the material on record did not establish his participation in the development arrangement, construction or sale of the project. The Authority held that his “mere identification as a landowner” was insufficient to impose liability in the absence of material demonstrating his participation in, or nexus with, the development.

Liability of Siddharth Landmark LLP

The order also noted that the proceedings were initially instituted against K.D. Developers. However, the subsequent site inspection report and the Development Agreement identified Siddharth Landmark LLP as the developer actually undertaking the development of the project.

Since no material was placed on record establishing any continuing role of K.D. Developers in the development or sale of the project, the Authority determined liability on the basis of the material subsequently brought on record.

Penalty and Direction for Registration

Rajasthan RERA ultimately held that Siddharth Landmark LLP, being the developer responsible for construction and development, and Brajesh Saxena, being the landowner having a substantive share in the constructed project, could not avoid the statutory requirement of registration under Section 3 of the RERA Act.

Accordingly, exercising its powers under Section 59, the Authority imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh each upon Siddharth Landmark LLP and Brajesh Saxena.

They were further directed to apply for registration of the project “99 Avenue” within 45 days and comply with the requisite statutory formalities.

Key Takeaway

The order underscores that private contractual arrangements between a landowner and developer cannot, by themselves, determine or extinguish statutory liability under RERA. While the actual role and nexus of each party must be examined on the basis of the material on record, a landowner having a substantive proprietary or economic interest in a development project may remain subject to statutory obligations despite delegating construction, development and sale responsibilities to a developer.

 

TNRERA Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Questions of Title; Parties Must Approach Competent Civil Court: Madras High Court

Case Title: N. Balakrishnan v. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case No.: W.P. No. 32211 of 2026
Connected Applications: W.M.P. Nos. 35399 and 35401 of 2026
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

The Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputed questions of title and that parties claiming competing rights over immovable property must approach the competent Civil Court for determination of such disputes.

The Court was considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by TNRERA concerning registration of a real estate project.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that although TNRERA is required to examine whether the promoter has the requisite legal title to the land at the stage of project registration, it cannot undertake a detailed adjudication of a genuinely disputed question of title. The Court held:

“However, it must be seen that when there are disputed questions of title, it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself. It is for the persons to approach the competent Civil Court.”

Factual Background

The petitioner claimed ownership over property situated in Thiruneermalai Village, asserting that the property had been purchased by his father. He also relied upon electricity, gas and telephone connections standing in respect of the property.

Meanwhile, the second respondent instituted a civil suit against the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the property. An interim injunction was also granted in favour of the second respondent.

According to the petitioner, although he had filed a counter in the civil proceedings, the matter remained pending for more than three years. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent had taken advantage of the ex parte interim injunction and applied to TNRERA for registration of a project proposed to be developed on the disputed property.

The petitioner consequently submitted an objection before the Chairperson of TNRERA, opposing registration of the project.

The petitioner had earlier sought information under the Right to Information Act, pursuant to which he was informed that no registration had been granted. However, he subsequently came to know that the project had been registered in favour of the second respondent.

Contentions of the Parties

The second respondent opposed the writ petition, asserting that he was the owner of the property and intended to develop it after obtaining the necessary permissions. It was submitted that the project had been duly registered with TNRERA in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The second respondent contended that TNRERA could not be called upon to adjudicate the title dispute raised by the petitioner.

Court's Reasoning

The High Court considered the requirements prescribed under Section 4(2)(l) of RERA, under which the promoter is required to make declarations regarding, inter alia, the promoter's legal title to the land and the absence of encumbrances.

The Court explained that TNRERA does have a statutory obligation to examine the promoter's declaration concerning title and encumbrances while considering an application for registration.

However, this regulatory scrutiny does not confer upon TNRERA the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate a contested question of ownership or title.

The Court observed that where, on the face of the record, the project proponent does not appear to possess legal title, or where the nature of an encumbrance is such that registration ought not to be granted, TNRERA may, depending upon the facts, refuse registration.

However, where the competing claims involve disputed questions of title requiring adjudication, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.

The Court held:

“With the said mandatory requirement in existence, if, prima facie, TNRERA is of view that the project proponent on the face of it does not qualify as somebody who is having title or that the nature of encumbrance is such that the registration cannot be granted, it may, in a given fact situation, reject the registration also.”

At the same time, the Court clarified:

“When there are disputed questions of title, it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself. It is for the persons to approach the competent Civil Court.”

Effect of Existing Civil Court Proceedings

An important factor considered by the High Court was that the dispute between the parties was already pending before the Civil Court and that an interim injunction had been granted in favour of the second respondent.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the matter did not warrant interference with the project registration merely because the petitioner asserted a competing claim to ownership.

The Court observed that mere registration of the project by TNRERA would not prejudice the petitioner's rights before the Civil Court. The petitioner remained entitled to pursue his claim of title and could even raise appropriate counter-claims or institute separate civil proceedings against the second respondent.

The Court stated:

“Mere grant of registration by the TNRERA will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner in canvassing its plea before the Civil Court or making even a counter-claim or filing even a suit as against the second respondent.”

Petitioner's Remedy Lies Before Civil Court

The High Court noted that in the earlier proceedings also, the petitioner had been relegated to the Civil Court for determination of his rights.

Accordingly, the Court left it open to the petitioner to raise the issue in the pending civil suit, including by filing an appropriate counter-petition, or to initiate separate civil proceedings concerning the property and the construction/project.

The Court further observed that, considering that the project had already been registered and that construction was at an advanced stage, it may not be appropriate for TNRERA to revoke the registration and reopen the title issue.

Decision

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, while preserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue his remedies before the competent Civil Court.

Key Takeaway

The decision draws an important distinction between regulatory scrutiny of title at the stage of project registration and judicial adjudication of a disputed title.

TNRERA is required to examine the promoter's statutory declarations concerning legal title and encumbrances under RERA. Where the promoter's lack of title is apparent on the face of the record, the Authority may take appropriate action, including refusal of registration.

However, where ownership itself is seriously disputed and requires evidence and adjudication, TNRERA cannot assume the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and conclusively determine the competing title claims. Such disputes must be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.

The judgment also clarifies that registration of a project under RERA does not by itself confer or conclusively establish title over the underlying property, nor does it prevent a person claiming ownership from pursuing appropriate civil remedies.