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. 

 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

No Land Acquired, No Real Estate Project

The Tribunal observed:

“Undisputedly, the Respondent No.1/Co-operative Society has not acquired any land for development and consequently it does not fall into the definition of Promoter and there is no project in existence let alone Complainant could be called as an Allottee.”

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

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

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

Society Contended RERA Had No Jurisdiction

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

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

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

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

Karnataka RERA accepted these submissions and dismissed the complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that:

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

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

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

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

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

Membership and Collection of Money Not Sufficient

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

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

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

Registration Requirement Cannot Arise Where No Project Exists

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Remedies Available

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

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

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

There was no order as to costs.

Key Takeaway

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

Karnataka High Court - RERA has no Authority Over Projects Granted ‘Partial’ Occupancy Certificate Prior to Enforcement of RERA

RERA has no Authority Over Projects Granted ‘Partial’ Occupancy Certificate Prior to Enforcement of RERA

Provident Housing Limited Vs Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority Writ Petition No.18448 of 2021

Date of Judgement/Order : 02/01/2023

Brief Facts of the Case:

• The petitioner is engaged in the business of real estate development. 
• On receiving respondent’s request to allot an apartment in the project, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and Construction with Respondent on 10/09/14. 
• The proposed date of completion of project was 31/01/17. 
• On 18/11/15– A partial occupancy certificate was granted by the competent authority i.e. BDA to the petitioner. 
• On 27/04/17– Second partial occupancy certificate was issued in favour of petitioner. 
• On 14/05/17– Respondent seeks to cancel the agreement on the ground that there was information to him that the land had not been legally acquired by the petitioner for construction of the Apartment complex. 
• On 04/12/17– The contract between petitioner and respondent is concluded, petitioner refunds the amount after deducting the cancellation charges.
• In 2019– Respondent by invoking Section 31 of the RERA Act, files a complaint before RERA Authority seeking a refund of remaining amount. 
• The authority passes the impugned order, directing the petitioner to refund the said amount. 
• On receiving the authority’s order, Petitioner files a petition before Karnataka HC challenging the maintainability of the complaint filed by respondent before the authority.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

• The partial occupancy certificate was issued in favor of petitioner before the commencement of the Act.  
• Therefore, the project of petitioner had already passed the stage of ‘ongoing project’ and is a ‘completed project’. 
• Since the project was completed before the commencement of the RERA Act, the Act is not applicable to petitioner’s project and therefore any complaint filed before the authority by invoking the provisions of the Act is not maintainable.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The project is still an ‘ongoing project’ as no ‘competition certificate’ was issued in favour of petitioner.

Issues:

• Whether the complaint filed by respondent before the Karnataka Real Estate Authority is maintainable? 
• Whether ‘on-going’ project includes the project for which completion certificate has not been issued.

Court’s Decision: 

• The court while taking into consideration the provisions of RERA Act (Section 2(q), 3, 18, 31, 43 and 84) and the rules made by Karnataka Government (Rule 3 and 4) under Section 84 of the Act, made following observations- 
• Section 3 of the Act mandates the registration for all ongoing projects at the time of commencement of the Act.  
• Section 3(2)(b) specifically excludes those projects to be registered under the act for which ‘completion certificate’ has been issued before the commencement of the Act. 
• In the present case, partial occupancy certificates have been issued, the project would be considered to be not completed at the time of commencement of this Act. 
• The explanation of ‘ongoing project’ under the Karnataka Government Rules (Rule 4) exempts the application of the Act to those projects for which partial occupancy certificate has been issued prior to coming into force of the Act. 
• Therefore as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Government Rules, the project is not an ongoing project as the explanation in Rule exempts such an ongoing project for which partial certificate has been obtained to the extent of the portion for which the partial occupancy certificate is obtained.
• Therefore, the provisions of the RERA Act are not applicable to the project and the order issued by the Authority is without jurisdiction and thus is not maintainable. 

• Held: The order passed by Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority is without jurisdiction. The project in question is a registered project in view of grant of partial occupancy certificates. In light of the same, the complaint filed before the authority by the respondent, itself is not maintainable.

The commercial advertisement cannot have the same decree of constitutional protection as in case of social or political speeches.”

 The Apex Court in Hamdard Dawakhana (WAKF) Lal Kuan, Delhi v Union of India 1960 AIR 554, 1960 SCR (2) 671 held that an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech but its true character is reflected by the object for the promotion of which it is employed. In this judgment, the court primarily relied on the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in Valentine v Chrestensen for the proposition that "purely commercial advertising" is not protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.

In the Matter of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal reported in (1995) 5 SCC 161 The Supreme Court held that “commercial advertisement no doubt is a form of speech but its true character is reflected by the object for promotion of which it is employed. Only when an advertisement is concerned with the expression or prorogation of ideas that it can be said to be related to freedom of expression and speech. The object and purpose for which advertisement is published is the determining factor. When propagation of ideas and thoughts is inconsequential, but the real purpose and object is the promotion of sales of goods and services and personal benefit without any social purpose, the commercial advertisement cannot have the same decree of constitutional protection as in case of social or political speeches.”

In the Matter of Real Estate Authority, Punjab on its own motion Vs. Singla Builders and Promoters limited, 6 0f 2018 Decided on 08.02.2018 the Authority Penalised the promoter for Rs. 10,000/- for not displaying the registration number in the advertisements.

In the suo moto Matter of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Vs. Sai Estate Consultant Chembur (P) Ltd.(Case No. 1 of 2017) the MahaRERA Authority directed the respondent who is  a registered Real Estate Agent, to withhold the advertisements with immediate effect and rectify all the hoardings by putting MahaRERA registration number on the same. The respondent was directed to  pay a fine Rs.10000/- per day of the violation and accordingly for a violation of 12 days he was directed to pay Rs.120000/-

As per Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority Circular number GujRERA/ Circular/18/2020 of date 04.01.2020 , “The font size of RERA registration number and website address in the advertisements should be mandatorily equal to or larger than the contact details of the proposed project.”  

As per the  Karnataka Rera Circular “The length and breadth of the “RERA REGISTERED'' information must not be less than 10% of the length and breadth (whichever is higher ) of the advertisement issued in print media”

In the Matter of Chandra Shekhar singh Vs. Kul Developers (P) Ltd. Complaint no. AT00500000000004, The Maharashtra appellate tribunal held that when the developer has made a promise of providing 30 Feet road through its brochure and advertisement,though it was the obligation of Municipal corporation,it would become the responsibility of the promoter to provide that.

Karnataka Rera - No Compensation is payable for mental agony in case of breach of a contract.

 In the Matter of Suman Rupanagudi vs. Adarsh Developers Complaint no. CMP/190912/0004118 decided on 31.01.2020  before Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Karnataka RERA tried to clear this ambiguity by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India. (2000)6 SCC113 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering a case of breach of contract under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, held that no damages are payable for mental agony in case of breach of a contract.

In Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta,AIR1994 SC 787 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the liability for mental agony had been fixed not within the realms of contract but under the principles of administrative law.

In view of the same, Karnataka RERA refused to grant relief towards mental agony

Even if the Project is completed with occupancy Certificate and does not require Rera Registration, even then the Promoter is bound by the responsibilities assigned under the act.

In the Matter of Raghunath MS vs. Esteem Group Complaint no. CMP/180620/0000936  decided on 14.11.2019 before  Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

In this case, the project was completed and conveyed to the association of allottees prior to the commencement of the Act. The allottee had purchased the unit from an erstwhile allottee. The developer contended that since the project was completed before the commencement of the Act and the occupancy certificate was obtained, they cannot be bound by the provisions of the Act. Referring to the Preamble of the Act, Karnataka RERA held that even if the project was completed prior to the commencement of the Act, the developer is bound by the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, Karnataka RERA directed the developer to hand over all documents and execute a registered deed to include civic amenities in favour of the association of allottees.