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Under the new framework, GujRERA can consider intervention in projects whose registration has lapsed, has been revoked, or which have otherwise been identified as stalled or stressed.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.

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 

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.

Maharashtra REAT Imposes Penalty Equivalent to 2% of Project Cost on RA Associates for Altering Project Plan Without Allottees’ Consent

Case Title: RA Residences Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. RA Associates & Ors.
Case No.: Appeal No. AT06/00804/2025
Date of Decision: 16 September 2026
Forum: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), by its judgment dated 16 September 2026, imposed a penalty equivalent to 2% of the project cost upon RA Associates and its partners, the promoters of the “RA Residences” project in Mumbai, for altering the disclosed project plans and increasing the Floor Space Index (FSI) of the commercial building without obtaining the requisite prior consent of the allottees.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande further directed the promoters to execute the conveyance of the residential building within 60 days. The Tribunal held that a promoter cannot indefinitely defer conveyance on the ground that additional FSI or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) may become available in the future.

The Tribunal observed:

“...In fact, once the FSI available in the project property is exhausted, the promoters are obligated to execute the conveyance and are not entitled to any further FSI, if available, due to change in policy within the property or procured from elsewhere.”

Background

The dispute arose in relation to the “RA Residences” project in Mumbai, comprising residential Wings A and B and a separate commercial/IT building. The promoters had initially proposed to complete the project by 30 June 2018, following which the registration of the project was extended by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Part occupation certificates for the residential wings were obtained on 23 June 2020, 15 December 2020 and 9 December 2021, while the housing society was registered on 18 October 2022.

The society subsequently approached MahaRERA alleging, inter alia, that the promoters had:

• materially altered the sanctioned and disclosed plans;

• utilised additional FSI without obtaining the requisite consent of the allottees;

• altered common and recreational areas;

• failed to execute the conveyance; and

• failed to hand over project documents, amenities and other facilities.

MahaRERA, by its order dated 7 July 2025, partly allowed the complaint and held that the promoters had violated Section 14(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which requires the prior consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees for specified alterations or additions to sanctioned plans.

The society thereafter preferred an appeal before MahaREAT seeking further reliefs.

Alteration of Plans Without Consent

Before the Tribunal, the promoters contended that the residential buildings had been completed in accordance with the sanctioned plans and that occupation certificates had been obtained. They further relied upon the agreements for sale, contending that the contractual arrangements contemplated separate residential and commercial structures and permitted development through additional FSI/TDR.

The Tribunal, however, held that the promoters had violated Section 14 of RERA by altering the disclosed sanctioned plans without obtaining the requisite consent of the allottees.

The Tribunal also found violations of Section 11 of RERA, which prescribes the promoter's statutory obligations, including obligations concerning conveyance.

Consent Under RERA and MOFA Cannot Be Contractually Dispensed With

The Tribunal additionally held that the promoters had violated Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), which requires the consent of flat purchasers for additions or alterations to the structure disclosed to them.

In particular, the Tribunal noted that construction of the commercial C-Wing under the revised 2021 plan required the consent of two-thirds of the allottees.

Significantly, it rejected the promoters' reliance upon deemed-consent clauses contained in the agreements for sale, observing:

“the deemed consent in the clauses of the agreements for sale is not the consent within the meaning of consent under section 7 of MOFA or section 14 of RERA.”

Thus, contractual provisions cannot be treated as a substitute for the statutory consent contemplated under RERA and MOFA.

Additional FSI/TDR and Entitlement of the Societies

The Tribunal further held that the additional FSI/TDR utilised by the promoters, but not disclosed in the 2017 plan, belonged to the societies representing the residential and commercial buildings of the project.

The Tribunal therefore directed proportionate apportionment of the sale proceeds generated from commercial units constructed by utilising the additional 4,225.57 square metres of FSI.

The finding assumes significance in the context of the promoter's rights over additional development potential after the disclosure of the original project plans and the rights of the allottees/societies in such additional development potential.

Conveyance Cannot Be Deferred Indefinitely

Since Wings A and B had received occupation certificates and possession had been handed over to the respective allottees, the Tribunal directed the promoters to complete the conveyance of the residential building.

It specifically rejected the proposition that conveyance could be postponed merely because additional FSI or TDR might become available in the future. The Tribunal held that once the FSI available in the project property has been exhausted, the promoters are required to execute the conveyance and cannot retain rights over future FSI merely because of a subsequent change in policy or because additional FSI/TDR may be procured from another source.

Accordingly, the promoters were directed to convey the residential building's proportionate interest in the project property, together with the relevant common areas and amenities, within 60 days.

Maintenance, Clubhouse and Corpus Fund

The Tribunal also considered amounts collected by the promoters towards maintenance charges, clubhouse charges and corpus fund.

Since the residential buildings had been completed and possession had been handed over, MahaREAT directed the promoters to furnish audited accounts of the amounts collected under these heads.

The Tribunal observed:

“Since the residential building (wing 'A' and wing 'B') is completed with occupation certificate and the allottees have taken the possession of their respective flats, we deem it appropriate to direct the promoters to provide audited accounts of the amounts collected under agreements towards maintenance charges, clubhouse charges, and corpus fund and refund the amount as per the audited accounts to the appellant with accrued interest on the said amount, if kept in a separate account.”

The promoters were consequently directed to refund the balance amount to the society, along with accrued interest wherever applicable.

Other Directions

MahaREAT further directed the promoters to:

1. hand over the remaining 64 guest parking spaces;

2. execute the conveyance of the residential building's proportionate interest in the project property;

3. hand over the relevant common areas and amenities;

4. furnish audited accounts concerning maintenance, clubhouse and corpus-fund collections; and

5. refund the balance amounts to the society with applicable interest.

The issues relating to incomplete works, repairs, deficiencies in services and rectification of defects were remanded to MahaRERA for fresh adjudication.

Key Takeaway

The decision reiterates that the promoter's contractual rights under an agreement for sale do not override the statutory protections afforded to allottees under RERA and MOFA. Alterations to disclosed plans and structures requiring statutory consent cannot be justified merely by relying upon deemed-consent clauses in agreements for sale.

The ruling also emphasises that future availability of FSI/TDR cannot be used as an indefinite ground to postpone conveyance once the relevant project development has reached the stage where conveyance is required. Further, where additional development potential is utilised in a manner not disclosed in the original project plan, the Tribunal may examine the consequential rights of the societies/allottees in the benefits arising from such additional development.

2/3rd majority of allottees, keeping the larger interest of project completion and the interest of all the allottees of the said project, have accorded their consent for transfer of project under Section 15 and extension of project under Section 7(3), the complaint of minority of less than 1/3rd of the allottees for refund under Section 18 is disallowed

 In the Matter of Nitin Soni & Ors. Vs NNP Buildcon LLP Complaint no.CC005000000043692  decided on 07.08.2020 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority 

• The complainants purchased apartments in a project 

• The possession was to be granted by the year 2019 but it was not provided hence the complainants sought for refund along with interest and compensation. 

• The Respondent‘s project has undergone a change of promoter, in March 2019, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15, wherein the erstwhile promoter Riverview Properties Pvt Ltd, has obtained consent of two-third of the allottees in the said project and as per the said consent terms, the project has been taken over by the present promoter i.e. NNP BUILDCON LLP. 

• The delay in the project was due to change in planning authority, the new planning authority provided commencement certificate in August 2019, no progress was done from 2013 till 2019. 

• The respondent submitted that a mutually agreed proposal was shared with the allottees of the project including the complainants during discussions before the Conciliation forum. Accordingly, consent of 2/3rd allottees was received. It was also submitted that since the law provides for 2/3rd consent, providing different relief to remaining 1/3rd allottees would go against the provisions of the Act and also would set a wrong precedent for 2/3rd allottees. 

• Hence, the Complainants prayer of refund under Section 18 of the Act was disallowed by the Authority.

x