Karnataka RERA Issues Standard Operating Procedure for Recovery of Monetary and Non-Monetary Reliefs Granted in RERA Orders

Karnataka RERA Issues Standard Operating Procedure for Recovery of Monetary and Non-Monetary Reliefs Granted in RERA Orders

Circular Details

Authority: Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA)
Date: 28 July 2026
Subject: Procedure to be followed in case of recovery of monetary and non-monetary reliefs in terms of orders passed on complaints filed under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016
Legal Basis: Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rules 25 and 26 of the Karnataka RERA Rules.

Key Directions

The circular lays down an SOP for execution and enforcement of K-RERA orders where the promoter or other judgment debtor fails to comply.

• 60-day compliance period: After 60 days from the order, K-RERA will ascertain whether the order has been complied with.

• Execution Petition: In case of non-compliance, the decree holder may file an Execution Petition through the RERA portal, along with an updated calculation statement where monetary dues are involved.

• Notice to parties: Notice will be issued to the decree holder and judgment debtor, giving the judgment debtor an opportunity to explain compliance or non-compliance.

• Additional opportunity: Where non-compliance continues, the Authority may grant a further two weeks for compliance.

• Disclosure of assets: In monetary recovery matters, the judgment debtor may be required to disclose details of movable and immovable assets, bank accounts and investments.

• Revenue Recovery Certificate: Continued failure to pay monetary dues may result in issuance of a Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) under Section 40(1) of RERA.

• Attachment and auction: The recovery process may extend to movable and immovable properties and bank accounts through the competent revenue authorities.

• Non-monetary relief: For orders involving non-monetary directions, K-RERA may enforce the order itself in accordance with law or transmit it to the Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction for enforcement under Section 40(2) of RERA and Rule 26.

Suggested Short Heading

K-RERA Issues SOP for Execution and Recovery of RERA Orders

This would work particularly well as a legal-news/blog heading, while the longer heading can be used as the formal title of the circular. 

 

Accepting Delayed Possession Does Not Bar Homebuyer From Claiming Interest: Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a homebuyer does not automatically lose the right to claim interest for delayed possession merely because the buyer subsequently accepts the flat.

The Court also observed that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) does not prescribe a specific limitation period for seeking interest on account of delayed possession. The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by Antriksh Developers and Promoters in connection with its Antriksh Golf View project in Sector 78, Noida.

Possession Delayed by Nearly Five Years

The dispute arose from a flat booked by homebuyer Shyam Sunder Agrawal in 2010. Under the agreement, possession was required to be handed over by November 2012.

However, the developer offered possession only in May 2017, nearly five years after the contractual deadline. The High Court also noted that the possession offer was made without the occupancy certificate and certain other documents required for a valid handover.

The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal subsequently directed the developer to pay interest on the amount deposited by the allottee for the period between December 2012 and May 2017, calculated at one percentage point above the Marginal Cost of Fund-Based Lending Rate (MCLR).

Acceptance of Possession Does Not Amount to Waiver

The developer challenged the award of interest, contending, among other things, that the buyer's acceptance of possession affected the claim for compensation.

The High Court rejected the proposition that acceptance of possession, by itself, extinguishes the allottee's right to seek interest for the period of delay.

The ruling therefore makes an important distinction between accepting possession of the property and waiving a statutory claim arising from the developer's earlier default. A buyer who accepts the keys after a prolonged delay does not automatically forfeit the right to seek interest for the period during which possession remained delayed.

Developer's Reliance on NGT Restrictions Rejected for Entire Delay

The developer also relied upon restrictions imposed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in relation to construction and the grant of occupancy certificates within a 10-kilometre radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary.

The High Court, however, found that the restriction could not explain the entire period of delay.

The contractual deadline for possession was November 2012, whereas the relevant NGT restriction came into effect only in August 2013. The Court also took note of the developer's own position that construction had been completed in 2014 and that an application for the occupancy certificate had been made during that year.

'Zero Period' Cannot Erase Earlier Default

The ruling also addresses the concept of a “zero period”, under which a period affected by a regulatory restriction may, in appropriate circumstances, be excluded while calculating the developer's delay.

The Court's reasoning makes clear that such a benefit cannot retrospectively wipe out a default that had already occurred before the regulatory restriction came into force.

In other words, a developer relying upon force majeure or a regulatory restraint must establish a connection between the alleged event and the period for which the delay is claimed.

RERA Does Not Prescribe Specific Limitation Period for Delayed-Possession Interest

Another significant aspect of the judgment is the Court's observation that RERA does not prescribe a specific limitation period for a claim seeking interest on account of delayed possession.

The Court nevertheless considered the claim in the context of the particular facts, including the contractual possession date, the actual offer of possession and the circumstances surrounding the delay.

Implications for Homebuyers

The judgment provides an important clarification for homebuyers who accept possession after years of waiting.

Taking possession does not, by itself, close the door on a delayed-possession interest claim. However, the outcome of an individual case will depend on the agreement, possession records, correspondence, applicable approvals and whether the buyer has entered into any specific settlement or waiver concerning the delay.

The decision also reinforces that a developer seeking to rely on force majeure or regulatory restrictions must demonstrate that the claimed event actually caused the delay for the relevant period.

Key Takeaway

The Allahabad High Court's ruling reinforces that acceptance of delayed possession is not automatically a waiver of the homebuyer's claim for interest for the period of developer default.

At the same time, the judgment does not mean that every delayed-possession claim will automatically succeed. The contractual timeline, actual date and validity of possession, applicable approvals and any alleged force-majeure event must be examined on the facts of each case.

 

63-Day Delay in Filing RERA Appeal Cannot Be Condoned Without Sufficient Cause: UP REAT

Case Title: S.J.P. Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Arnab Das
Forum: Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (UP REAT)
don

The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a 63-day delay in filing an appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be condoned in the absence of a satisfactory explanation demonstrating sufficient cause.

The Tribunal considered an application filed by S.J.P. Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. seeking condonation of the delay in challenging an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

Delay in Filing Appeal

The appellant acknowledged that it was aware of the impugned RERA order when the order was uploaded on the Authority's portal. However, it applied for a certified copy only after approximately 60 days.

The appellant subsequently relied upon the time taken for consultation, collection and collation of records and preparation of the appeal to explain the delay.

Tribunal Finds Explanation Insufficient

The UP REAT rejected the explanation, holding that the reasons cited did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order and could not satisfactorily explain why it waited for such a substantial period before taking steps to obtain the certified copy and institute the appeal.

The Tribunal therefore declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant.

Limitation Under RERA

The proceedings arose in the context of Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, which prescribes the limitation framework for appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

The decision reiterates that although an appellate forum has discretion to condone delay where sufficient cause is established, such discretion cannot be exercised merely because an appellant cites administrative or preparatory difficulties.

Importance of Prompt Legal Action

The ruling highlights the importance of acting promptly after an adverse RERA order is passed or uploaded.

A litigant seeking condonation of delay must provide a specific and convincing explanation covering the period of delay. General references to consultations, collection of documents or drafting of an appeal may not, by themselves, satisfy the requirement of sufficient cause.

Key Takeaway

The UP REAT decision reinforces that limitation provisions under RERA cannot be treated casually. An appellant who is aware of an adverse order must take timely steps to obtain the necessary documents and file an appeal.

Where the delay remains inadequately explained, the Tribunal may refuse to condone the delay and decline to entertain the appeal on merits.

 

New Developer Cannot Deny Homebuyer Rights Merely Because Payments Were Made to Previous Promoter: Karnataka RERA

Case Title: Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru v. Manyam Estates Private Limited & Ors.
Complaint No.: 00202/2025
Authority: Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 108

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has directed Sohan Realty, the developer that took over a Bengaluru residential project subsequently known as Sohan Skypark, to recognise Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru as the lawful allottee of Flat No. B-302 and provide her access and possession of the apartment.

Dispute Over Flat Allotment

The complaint arose from the allotment of Flat No. B-302 in the residential project. The allottee had made payments in connection with the flat to the project's earlier promoter, Manyam Estates Private Limited.

Following the subsequent takeover of the project by Sohan Realty, a dispute arose concerning the allottee's rights and whether the new promoter could refuse to recognise the payments and contractual rights arising from the earlier arrangement.

New Promoter Bound to Honour Existing Allottee Rights

K-RERA held that the subsequent promoter could not simply shift responsibility to the outgoing developer after taking over the project.

The Authority relied upon Section 8 of the RERA Act, which deals with the obligations of a promoter where a project is transferred or taken over, and Section 11(4)(a), which requires a promoter to honour the obligations arising from agreements and representations made to allottees.

The Authority observed:

“Once M/s Sohan Realty has stepped in as promoter under Section 8, it cannot refuse access nor shift responsibility onto the outgoing promoter.”

Right to Possession and Peaceful Enjoyment

K-RERA also relied upon Section 19(1) of the RERA Act, which recognises an allottee's right to possession and peaceful enjoyment of the apartment in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

The Authority held that the change in the identity of the promoter could not, by itself, extinguish the rights already acquired by the allottee.

Accordingly, the subsequent developer was required to recognise Kanuru's allotment and provide her access to the apartment.

Takeover of Project Does Not Extinguish Existing Rights

The ruling emphasises that a promoter taking over an existing real-estate project also assumes statutory responsibilities towards its existing allottees.

The incoming developer cannot avoid those obligations merely by contending that payments were made to the previous promoter. Any dispute concerning financial or contractual liabilities between the outgoing and incoming developers cannot, by itself, be used to defeat the allottee's established rights in the project.

K-RERA Directs Recognition of Allotment

K-RERA accordingly directed Sohan Realty to recognise Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru as the lawful allottee of Flat No. B-302 and to grant her access and possession of the apartment.

The decision reinforces the statutory protection available to homebuyers when a real-estate project changes hands during its development.

Key Takeaway

The decision underscores that a change in promoter does not automatically wipe out the rights of existing allottees. When a new promoter steps into the project, it must comply with the obligations imposed by RERA towards the existing homebuyers.

For allottees, the ruling reinforces the principle that their contractual and statutory rights travel with the project, rather than depending solely upon the identity of the developer who originally received their payments.

Promoters Cannot Split Adjoining Land Parcels to Avoid RERA Registration: Rajasthan REAT also ubpheld by Rajastahan High court

 

Promoters Cannot Split Adjoining Land Parcels to Avoid RERA Registration: Rajasthan REAT

Case Title: Harish Jasuja v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Appeal No.: 66/2022 & Connected Appeals
Forum: Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT)

The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that promoters cannot claim exemption from mandatory RERA registration by treating adjoining parcels of land as separate projects merely because the parcels are individually owned and each measures less than 500 square metres.

The Tribunal dismissed eight connected appeals filed by promoter Harish Jasuja in relation to the “City Trade Centre” project at Sri Ganganagar, holding that the project had been conceived, developed and marketed as a single integrated project and therefore required registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Dispute Over RERA Registration

The appeals arose from proceedings concerning the registration of the City Trade Centre project. The promoter sought to rely upon separate ownership of adjoining parcels of land to contend that the individual plots fell below the 500-square-metre threshold prescribed under Section 3 of the RERA Act.

Under Section 3(2)(a), certain projects are exempt from registration where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight.

The promoter's case was that the relevant parcels should be considered independently for determining whether the exemption applied.

Tribunal Rejects Artificial Division of Project

The Rajasthan REAT rejected this approach.

The Tribunal examined the manner in which the properties were planned and developed and found that the adjoining parcels were not functioning as genuinely independent projects. Instead, the development had been designed and marketed as one integrated project with common amenities.

The Tribunal observed that allowing promoters to structure a project through separate land parcels, each falling below the statutory threshold, could defeat the very purpose of the RERA legislation.

It cautioned that if such an arrangement were permitted, multiple persons could acquire adjoining parcels through separate sale deeds and subsequently develop them collectively while claiming exemption from RERA registration.

Common Development Relevant to Determining Project Status

According to the Tribunal, the substance of the development rather than the manner in which the underlying parcels were individually held was relevant.

Where adjoining parcels are collectively planned, constructed and marketed as a single development, they cannot simply be treated as separate projects to obtain the benefit of the registration exemption.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the City Trade Centre had been designed, constructed and marketed as a single project and was consequently required to be registered under Section 3 of the RERA Act.

Eight Appeals Dismissed

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma dismissed the connected appeals filed by Harish Jasuja.

The Rajasthan REAT's official judgment records show that Appeal No. 66/2022 and several connected appeals involving Harish Jasuja were dismissed on May 12, 2026.

Key Takeaway

The decision reinforces the principle that the RERA registration exemption cannot be defeated by artificially fragmenting an integrated real-estate development into smaller adjoining parcels.

For determining whether a project falls within the mandatory registration framework, the manner in which the development is actually conceived, constructed and marketed may be more significant than the formal division or separate ownership of the underlying land parcels.

The ruling therefore serves as an important reminder that promoters cannot rely solely on individual plot sizes where the evidence establishes that the properties form part of a single integrated real-estate project.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds RERA Direction to Register ‘City Trade Centre’ Project

Case Title: Harish Jasuja v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2726/2026
Connected Appeals: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 2723/2026, 2724/2026 and other connected matters

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the direction requiring Harish Jasuja to register the “City Trade Centre” project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The Court dismissed the challenge against the orders passed by the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, holding that the appeals did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 58 of the RERA Act.

 

MahaREAT Says RERA Has No Jurisdiction Over Banks Lending to Homebuyers, Refuses to Stay SARFAESI Recovery

Case Title: Kamlesh Valji Balsara & Anr. v. M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure and Realty & Ors.
Case No.: Appeal No. AT06/01035/2025 and connected appeals

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has held that the RERA authorities do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between homebuyers and financial institutions that have extended loans to the homebuyers.

The Tribunal consequently declined to stay recovery proceedings initiated against the homebuyers under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, while restraining the promoter from creating third-party rights in the flats concerned.

Dispute Arising From Subvention Scheme

The appeals arose from disputes involving Kamlesh Valji Balsara and other homebuyers and Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure and Realty.

The homebuyers had booked flats in the developer's project under a subvention scheme, under which the promoter was required to bear the pre-EMI obligations until possession of the flats was handed over.

To finance their purchases, the homebuyers obtained loans from a non-banking financial company. The loans were subsequently assigned to an asset reconstruction company.

After the project was delayed and the promoter allegedly failed to fulfil its obligations under the subvention arrangement, recovery proceedings were initiated against the homebuyers under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

Homebuyers Approached MahaRERA

The homebuyers had separately approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority alleging delay in possession and seeking appropriate relief against the promoter.

By a common order dated July 31, 2025, MahaRERA allowed their complaints and directed the promoter either to refund the amounts with interest or pay interest for the delay in possession.

The homebuyers thereafter approached MahaREAT in connection with the recovery proceedings initiated by the financial institutions.

Tribunal Holds RERA Cannot Adjudicate Claims Against Lending Institutions

MahaREAT declined to interfere with the recovery action undertaken by the financial institutions.

The Tribunal distinguished cases where a financial institution lends money directly to a promoter. In such circumstances, RERA authorities may have jurisdiction in appropriate cases, including situations where a lender steps into the shoes of the promoter following a default.

The Tribunal noted that the present case was different because the loans had been advanced to the allottees and not to the promoter.

It therefore held that the contractual arrangements between the homebuyers, promoter and lending institution could not be enforced under the provisions of the RERA Act.

SARFAESI Recovery Not Stayed

The Tribunal consequently refused to grant a stay against the recovery proceedings initiated by the financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act.

However, while declining to interfere with the recovery action, MahaREAT directed that the promoter should not alienate the flats or create any third-party rights in respect of the properties involved until final disposal of the appeals.

RERA Remedy Against Promoter Distinct From Bank Recovery

The decision draws a distinction between remedies available to homebuyers against a real-estate developer under RERA and disputes arising from their independent loan arrangements with financial institutions.

While the homebuyers could pursue their RERA remedies against the promoter for issues such as delayed possession, the Tribunal held that the RERA framework could not be used to adjudicate or restrain contractual recovery proceedings undertaken by lenders against the borrowers.

Key Takeaway

The ruling reinforces the jurisdictional limits of RERA authorities in disputes involving home-loan lenders and borrowers. Where the loan has been advanced to the homebuyer rather than the promoter, disputes arising from the lending arrangement cannot ordinarily be enforced through RERA proceedings.

At the same time, the Tribunal's direction restraining the promoter from creating third-party rights in the flats preserves the homebuyers' interests in the underlying real-estate dispute while the appeals remain pending.

 

RERA Registration Not Required Where Leasehold Developer Has No Right to Sell Units: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. M/s Maa Bhagwati Commercial Reality N Resorts LLP
Case No.: RERA Appeal No. 169 of 2025
Court: Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Decision Date: May 8, 2026

The Allahabad High Court has held that a developer holding only leasehold rights in a property, without the legal authority to sell apartments, plots or buildings, does not fall within the definition of a "promoter" under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held that where the developer's rights are confined to developing the property and creating sub-leases, and it has no right to sell the units, the project does not qualify as a "real estate project" requiring registration under RERA.

Dispute Over Registration of 'Samrajya' Project

The case concerned the proposed "Samrajya" project in Ayodhya, being developed by M/s Maa Bhagwati Commercial Reality N Resorts LLP.

The land belonged to a public charitable trust, Udasin Sangat Rishi Aashram, Ranopali, Ayodhya. The trust had executed a registered lease dated September 29, 2023, in favour of the developer for a period of 29 years and 11 months.

The lease permitted construction of a commercial building and contained provisions permitting sub-leasing of the property.

The developer subsequently applied to U.P. RERA for registration of the project. However, the Authority raised objections concerning the nature of the leasehold rights and the developer's authority to create sub-leases in respect of the trust property.

U.P. RERA ultimately rejected the registration application.

RERA Appellate Tribunal Had Directed Registration

The developer challenged the rejection before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), Lucknow.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed U.P. RERA to register the project and issue the registration number, Login ID and password within seven days.

U.P. RERA thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act, challenging the Tribunal's decision.

High Court Examines Whether Leasehold Project Falls Under RERA

The High Court considered, among other issues, whether a real estate project could be developed and registered under RERA on land taken on lease for 29 years and 11 months when the developer did not possess the right to sell the apartments or buildings.

The Court examined the definitions of "promoter" under Section 2(zk) and "real estate project" under Section 2(zn) of the RERA Act.

It noted that the statutory definition of a real estate project contemplates development for the purpose of selling apartments, plots or buildings.

Right to Sell Held to Be Essential

The Court found that the lease deed did not confer upon the developer a right to sell the property. Instead, the relevant clauses permitted the developer to create sub-leases.

The Court therefore held that mere possession of leasehold rights is not sufficient to make a person a "promoter" under RERA.

The judgment observed that the status of a promoter is determined not merely by possession or a leasehold interest, but by the developer's role in developing and selling units in a real estate project.

According to the Court, a lessee who does not sell units to prospective allottees does not fall within the statutory definition of a promoter.

RERA Registration Not Mandatory

The Court concluded that the purpose of sale is a necessary element for attracting the provisions of RERA relating to real estate projects.

Since Maa Bhagwati Commercial Reality N Resorts LLP did not have the legal authority under its lease to sell the apartments, plots or buildings, the proposed project did not fall within the ambit of the RERA Act.

Consequently, the Court held that the developer was neither required to obtain RERA registration nor could it be compelled to obtain registration for the project.

Tribunal's Direction to Register Project Set Aside

The High Court consequently disposed of the appeal and held that U.P. RERA was under no obligation to issue a registration number, Login ID or password pursuant to the developer's application.

The Authority was also directed to withdraw the Form-D communication containing prohibitory and restrictive clauses issued in relation to the project.

The Court concluded that the RERA framework is attracted to projects undertaken for the purpose of sale to prospective allottees, and not to a development where the developer merely holds leasehold rights and can only create sub-leases.

Key Takeaway

The judgment draws an important distinction between leasehold development rights and the statutory concept of a promoter under RERA.

According to the High Court, possession of land under a long-term lease, by itself, does not trigger RERA registration. The crucial consideration is whether the developer has the legal authority to develop and sell apartments, plots or buildings to prospective allottees.

Where the developer has no right to sell and is limited to creating sub-leases, the project would not constitute a "real estate project" for the purposes of mandatory registration under RERA.

 

Provisional Flat Allotment Given as Loan Security Does Not Establish Allottee Rights: MahaRERA

Case Title: Naresh Moturam Bhojwani v. Shree Tirupati Greenfield
Case No.: Complaint No. CC006000000591428

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that a provisional reservation or allotment letter issued merely as security for a loan does not, by itself, establish a promoter-allottee relationship under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The Authority accordingly dismissed a complaint filed by Naresh Moturam Bhojwani, who had sought possession or refund in relation to a flat in Shree Tirupati Greenfield's “Siddheshwar Gardens” project.

Dispute Over Provisional Flat Reservation

The complaint arose from a Provisional Reservation Letter relied upon by Bhojwani as evidence of his allotment in the project.

MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande examined the document and held that it had to be read as a whole rather than by relying selectively on portions that appeared to support the complainant's claim.

A material term of the document, particularly Clause 6(3), indicated that the transaction was intended to operate as security against a loan.

Document Must Be Read as a Whole

The Authority observed that a party who signs and accepts a document is presumed to have read and understood its terms and conditions.

It therefore rejected the attempt to rely on the portions of the reservation letter referring to the flat while disregarding the specific clause describing the transaction as security for a loan.

MahaRERA observed:

“Once a party signs and accepts a document, such party is presumed to have read, understood and accepted all the terms and conditions contained therein.”

The Authority further held that the complainant could not selectively rely upon the recitals concerning allotment while ignoring the specific contractual provision dealing with the nature of the transaction.

Promoter-Allottee Relationship Not Established

On an examination of the relevant documents and circumstances, MahaRERA concluded that the provisional allotment did not conclusively establish the existence of a promoter-allottee relationship of the nature contemplated under the RERA Act.

Consequently, the complainant could not claim the statutory remedies of possession or refund merely on the basis of the provisional reservation document.

The complaint was therefore dismissed.

Key Takeaway

The decision highlights the importance of examining the substance and complete terms of an allotment or reservation document before invoking remedies under RERA.

A document describing a flat reservation or allotment will not necessarily confer statutory allottee rights where its terms expressly establish that the transaction was undertaken as security for a loan rather than as a conventional sale or allotment of a residential unit.

 

RERA Cannot Demand 25-Year-Old Cooperative Society Records for Project Registration: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal v. Shri Ji Builders and Developers
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 2857 of 2024
Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:42665

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MP-RERA) cannot reject a project registration application merely because the promoter failed to produce internal records of a cooperative society relating to a transaction carried out nearly 25 years ago, particularly when registered title documents and revenue records are available.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed the appeal filed by MP-RERA and upheld the earlier order directing the Authority to process the registration application submitted by Shri Ji Builders and Developers for its proposed “Krishna Orchid” project in Bhopal.

Dispute Over Registration of Krishna Orchid Project

The dispute arose after Shri Ji Builders and Developers applied for registration of its proposed project situated at Village Khajuri Kalan, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal.

MP-RERA rejected the application on June 9, 2023, citing several deficiencies. Among the objections were the non-submission of a diverted Khasra certificate and questions concerning the title arising from a 1999 sale transaction executed by a cooperative society.

The Authority also sought the original resolution register of the cooperative society to establish that the transaction had been duly authorised, besides raising an objection regarding the filing of income-tax returns.

The developer challenged the rejection before the High Court.

High Court Says RERA Cannot Adjudicate Title Disputes

The Single Judge, by an order dated September 23, 2024, directed MP-RERA to proceed with the registration process after carrying out prima facie verification of title on the basis of registered sale deeds and relevant revenue records.

MP-RERA challenged that order before the Division Bench.

The High Court held that the RERA Authority performs a regulatory and facilitative function and cannot assume the role of a civil court by conclusively adjudicating disputed questions relating to title.

The Bench observed that allowing the Authority to undertake such an exercise would effectively transform it from a regulatory body into a civil court, which was not contemplated under the RERA framework.

25-Year-Old Records Cannot Be Treated as an Impossible Requirement

The Court particularly considered the transaction dating back to December 29, 1999.

It noted that the sale deeds had been registered, mutation had subsequently been carried out in February 2000, and possession had continued uninterrupted for more than two decades.

Against this background, the Court found it unreasonable to insist upon the cooperative society's internal records from 1999 to establish the validity of a transaction that was already supported by registered documents and revenue records.

The Bench observed:

“To demand historical internal records of a cooperative from 1999, twenty-five years post-facto, is to impose an impossible burden of proof.”

Procedural Deficiencies Could Be Cured

The High Court also treated the non-submission of the diverted Khasra certificate and income-tax returns as curable procedural deficiencies, rather than grounds for rejecting the entire registration application.

The Court noted that the diversion proceedings had substantially progressed and that the requirement relating to income-tax returns was intended primarily to ensure transparency and disclosure.

It held that such deficiencies could be addressed without preventing registration of an otherwise eligible project.

Appeal by MP-RERA Dismissed

The Court also considered MP-RERA's objection that the developer should have first pursued the statutory remedy before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

The Bench noted the practical unavailability of the appellate forum at the relevant time because of vacancies in key positions. It therefore declined to interfere with the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the Single Judge.

Ultimately, the Division Bench found no illegality or perversity in the Single Judge's order and dismissed MP-RERA's appeal.

The Authority was directed to proceed with the registration of the Krishna Orchid project after verification of title through the available registered documents and revenue records, subject to compliance with the remaining requirements.

Key Takeaway

The judgment underscores the limits of RERA's regulatory powers in matters involving disputed title. While the Authority is required to scrutinise statutory compliance and protect the interests of real-estate stakeholders, it cannot substitute itself for a civil court to adjudicate complex or historical title disputes.

The ruling also makes clear that curable procedural deficiencies should not, by themselves, result in rejection of a project registration application, particularly where substantive title documents and revenue records are available.

Punjab RERA Orders PUDA to Refund ₹21 Lakh to Allottee Despite Payment Defaults

Rajesh Verma v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA)
GC No. 0512/2022

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Punjab RERA) has held that where both the allottee and the developer are found to have breached their respective obligations, neither party can ordinarily claim equitable relief such as specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.

The Authority, chaired by Rakesh Kumar Goyal, accordingly directed the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) to refund ₹21 lakh deposited by allottee Rajesh Verma, along with interest. The total amount payable was assessed at ₹43.68 lakh as on August 31, 2026.

Dispute Over 400-Square-Yard Plot in Mohali

The case concerned a 400-square-yard residential plot in Gateway City, Sector 118-119, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

PUDA issued a Letter of Intent to Verma on July 10, 2015, for a tentative consideration of ₹84 lakh. An allotment letter was subsequently issued on August 16, 2016, pursuant to which Verma deposited ₹21 lakh towards the plot.

Verma thereafter failed to pay instalments due on August 17, 2017, February 17, 2018 and August 17, 2018.

He contended that the project had not been adequately developed and sought possession without interest on the outstanding dues. Alternatively, he sought a refund of the amount deposited along with interest.

Allottee's Payment Defaults Not Justified

PUDA informed Verma in February 2019 that possession was available and called upon him to clear the outstanding amount along with interest. Verma, however, did not act upon the offer.

Punjab RERA noted that the payment schedule under the allotment was not linked to the progress of development. It therefore rejected the contention that Verma was justified in withholding the instalments and held that he had defaulted on his payment obligations.

PUDA Also Found at Fault

At the same time, the Authority found shortcomings on PUDA's part concerning the timely offer of possession.

Punjab RERA noted that PUDA had the power under Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount in the event of a breach. However, PUDA did not exercise that power and continued to retain the amount deposited by Verma.

The Authority observed that PUDA's conduct did not extinguish its obligation to deal with the money retained by it in accordance with law.

Neither Party Entitled to Equitable Relief

While considering the competing defaults, Punjab RERA relied on the established principle that a person seeking equitable relief must approach the forum with clean hands.

The Authority observed that while the allottee had defaulted in making payments, the developer had also failed to fulfil its obligations relating to timely handover. In such circumstances, neither party could ordinarily claim specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.

The Authority therefore declined to grant Verma possession under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

₹43.68 Lakh Payable to Allottee

Despite finding Verma in default of the payment schedule, Punjab RERA held that the circumstances justified a refund of the ₹21 lakh deposited by him, together with interest.

The complaint was accordingly partly allowed, with PUDA directed to pay:

• ₹21 lakh towards the principal amount;

• ₹22.68 lakh towards interest; and

• ₹43.68 lakh in total as on August 31, 2026.

PUDA was further directed to pay ₹18,900 per month from September 1, 2026, until the amount was actually paid.

The Authority also directed that the amount would be recoverable as land revenue and that a Debt Recovery Certificate would be issued in the event of non-compliance.

Ruling Highlights Importance of Mutual Compliance

The decision highlights that a party's own contractual default does not automatically entitle the opposite party to the relief of forfeiture or specific performance. Where defaults are attributable to both sides, the regulatory authority may examine the conduct of each party and mould the relief to ensure that neither side derives an unfair advantage from the other's breach.

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