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.

 

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.

 

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.

Landowner Liable for Project Registration Despite Development Agreement: Rajasthan RERA

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

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

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

Development Agreement Does Not Extinguish Landowner's Statutory Obligations

Chairperson Veenu Gupta observed:

“The contractual allocation of particular development responsibilities to the developer cannot, by itself, absolve the landowner from the statutory obligations arising under the Act in respect of the project.”

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

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

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

Landowner's Defence Rejected

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

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

The Authority rejected this defence.

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

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

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

Violation Was Not a Mere Technical Lapse

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

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

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

Proceedings Against Another Landowner Dropped

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

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

Liability of Siddharth Landmark LLP

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

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

Penalty and Direction for Registration

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

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

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

Key Takeaway

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factual Background

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

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

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

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

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

Contentions of the Parties

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

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

Court's Reasoning

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

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

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

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

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

The Court held:

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

At the same time, the Court clarified:

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

Effect of Existing Civil Court Proceedings

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

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

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

The Court stated:

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

Petitioner's Remedy Lies Before Civil Court

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

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

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

Decision

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

Key Takeaway

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

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

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

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

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.

MahaRERA - Section 15 only deals with voluntary transfer of a real estate project from an Existing Promoter to a new developer, wherever it is not a case of voluntary transfer by the Existing Promoter to the Incoming Promoter but through Planning Authorities, section 15 cannot be made applicable.

Section 15 only deals with voluntary transfer of a real estate project from an Existing Promoter to a new developer, wherever it is not a case of voluntary transfer by the Existing Promoter to the Incoming Promoter but through Planning Authorities, section 15 cannot be made applicable. 

Suo Motu Case No. 300 0F 2024 & Suo Motu Case No. 301 of 2024

Before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai

Date of Order March 27 , 2024

Fact of the Case:- 

• Some Slum land was situated in Kurla, Mumbai which is a declared slum.
• In the Year 2013 ,The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA)  issued an LOI for its re-development to the RADIUS & DESERVE BUILDERS LLP.
• The RADIUS as promoter had registered 2 projects under section 5 of the RERA Act,2016 with the MahaRERA Authority.
• The Projects however did not move forward.
• on Date 20.09.2021, The SRA then under Section-13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,1971 (Slum Act) passed an order , removing RADIUS as the Promoter.
• SRA permitted the societies to pass a general body resolution terminating the RADIUS as Promoter and appointment of a new developer of their choice.
• on 29.01,.2023 The Societies ,in their general body meeting, in the presence of the Assistant Registrar, SRA, terminated RADIUS  as the developer for the SRA scheme of redevelopment of the three societies and appointed the Incoming Promoter CHANDAK REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED as the new developer.
• An LOI dated 12.04.2023 was issued by the SRA to the incoming Promoter CHANDAK.
• On 04.09.2023, an application was made by the Incoming Promoter CHANDAK seeking change of Promoter for the said Projects. 
  

The Authority Framed the following Questions for consideration:-

1. weather the change of promoter application is maintainable under section 15 of the Act?
2. whether the incoming Promoter as appointed by the societies and confirmed by the SRA can be regarded as a Promoter under the said Act?
3. who would be responsible for the obligations towards the earlier allottees?

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• From the plain reading of section 15, it is clear that this section is applicable in cases where there is a transfer of a real estate project from an Existing Promoter to a new developer i.e. Incoming Promoter. 
• In the present case the said Projects are not transferred to the Incoming Promoter (new developer) by the Existing Promoter, but the Incoming Promoter is being appointed by the societies as the Existing Promoter was terminated by the societies and SRA on account of various defaults and SRA who is the Planning Authority has confirmed the appointment of the Incoming Promoter herein.
• This is not a case of voluntary transfer by the Existing Promoter to the Incoming Promoter. 
• The section 15 deals with voluntary transfer, Thus, a change in Promoter as envisaged under section 15 cannot be made applicable here..
• in SRA projects, It is the promoter  who constructs the rehabilitation houses and finances those by selling houses in the free sale component. 
• Every project must have a promoter which is either a private or a government entity who carries the project forward delivering the promised homes which is in the interest of the consumers.
• ln this particular case it is the SRA that is mandated to recognize the Promoter and provide him with the legal Authority to enter upon the land which is declared as slum and to cause to construct both the rehabilitation component and the sale component.
• The SRA in this case has passed the order appointing the incoming Promoter as the new developer. In effect it is this appointee who will now have rights to enter upon the land construct the same and subsequently enable conveyance to the societies.
• This section mandates that advertising, marketing, booking, selling and all other such related activities can only be done by the promoter. 
• Hence in this case for the said Project to move forward and to enable the Incoming Promoter to market advertise and sell the project the Incoming Promoter would have to be recognized as a promoter.
• Since the appointment of the Incoming Promoter does not fall under section 15 the obligation towards the allottees cannot be fastened on the Incoming Promoter.
• While terminating the Existing Promoter and issuing the LOI to the Incoming Promoter the SRA has clearly directed that the Incoming Promoter is to reimburse amounts spent by the Existing Promoter. 
• The Incoming Promoter is now under an obligation to ensure all expenditure incurred on the said Project by the Existing Promoter is reimbursed to him.
• The Incoming Promoter on assuming the role of the Promoter will not be saddled with the obligations of the existing allottees of the Existing Promoter. The existing allottees stand protected and can enforce their claims against the Existing Promoter.

Court’s Order:-

1. The Incoming Promoter to apply to MahaRERA for a new / fresh registration

number with respect to the said Project Nos. 1 & 2 as per rules and procedures

laid down under the said Act.

2. A new / fresh registration number to be issued to the Incoming Promoter after

due scrutiny of the registration application filed by them with respect to the said

Project Nos. 1& 2.

3. The Incoming Promoter to open a new designated bank account as per rules and

procedures laid down under the said Act for execution of the project.

4. The existing registration of the said Project Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. P51800009827 and

P51800005533 allotted to the Existing Promoter be kept in abeyance till

obligations of the existing allottees are settled.

5. The Existing Promoter shall not advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or

invite person/s to purchase in any manner any apartment in the said Project

Nos. 1 & 2.

Mere obtaining of occupancy certificate does not oust the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority

Occupancy Certificate - Developer has obtained the occupancy certificate and not the completion certificate before the RERA came into effect - Therefore, it cannot be held that there was no requirement for even registration of the project by the developer with the RERA authority.

Court would not consider the petitioner to be outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the respondent- authority - Mere obtaining of occupancy certificate does not oust the jurisdiction of the respondent authority.

Section 3 - Haryana Real Estate Regulation and  Development Rules, 2017, Rule 2 - Registration - Petitioner having already applied for and obtained an occupation certificate as referred to above in terms of the Haryana Building Code, 2017, prior to  01.05.2017 - Petitioner still Required to get itself registered with the Authority - 

Held that simply obtaining of an occupancy certificate or having applied for  such certificate in terms of the Haryana Building Code, 2017 - Petitioner not outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the Authority.

Experion Developers Private Limited v. State of Haryana, 2022 (2) Law Herald 1660: 2022 (4) R.C.R.(Civil) 339 : 2022 (3) PLR 290 (P&H) (DB): Law Finder Doc Id #1981966 

P&H High Court - Authority has no power or jurisdiction to reduce the time period mentioned in the declaration

 In the Matter of M/S Parador Developers ... vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority RERA Appeal No.19 of 2020 decided on 27 November, 2020 before THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Fact of the Matter

• Vide request dated 13.10.2017, the appellant sought permission for change of land use of an area measuring 93.265 acres for development of a residential colony. 
• The Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, granted permission for change of land use vide its memo dated 17.10.2017. 
• Consequently, an application for grant of licence was made to the Amritsar Development Authority, who, granted the licence vide its memo dated 13.06.2019. Licence period was 5 years ending on 12.06.2024. 
• Thus, application dated 10.09.2019 was filed before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority) for registration of Phase-I of the residential colony under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
• A declaration in Form-B was also filed stating that the development 1 of 8 work would be completed on or before 12.06.2024. 
• Phase-I was registered but the validity thereof was reduced by one year i.e. upto 12.06.2023. 
• The appellant sought a clarification and vide memo dated 13.11.2019. 
• The Authority clarified that registration was uptill 12.06.2023 only as the group housing component was not being executed in Phase-I. 
• Thus, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.2 but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2020.  (This Order is published on this blog on 18.05.2021)
• Hence, the present appeal has been filed under Section 58 of the Act.

Order of the High Court 

 It is held that the Authority has no power or jurisdiction to reduce the time period mentioned in the declaration. If it feels that the period mentioned is arbitrary or unacceptable due to any reasons, a notice to show cause for rejection of the application must be given.

Once registration of the Real Estate project lapses on non-completion of project or on revocation,the Authority is enjoined upon the duty to consult with the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or any other manner

 In the Matter of  Bikram Chatterji vs Union Of India Complaint no. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.940/2017 decided on  23.07.2019 before Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court Observed that

112. Once registration lapses on non-completion of project within the time stipulated or it is revoked the consequence ensue as enumerated in Section 8 of RERA, the Authority is enjoined upon the duty to consult with the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or any other manner as may be determined by the Authority. The development work has to be completed and cannot be left in between. Section 8 reads thus;

“8. Obligation of Authority consequent upon lapse of or on revocation of registration.- Upon lapse of the registration or on revocation of the registration under this Act, the Authority, may consult the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem fit including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or in any other manner, as may be determined by the Authority:

Provided that no direction, decision or order of the Authority under this section shall take effect until the expiry of the period of appeal provided under the provisions of this Act:

Provided further that in case of revocation of registration of a project under this Act, the association of allottees shall have the first right of refusal for carrying out of the remaining development works.”

The Authority is not bound by the declaration of the Promoter under section 4(2)(1)(c),Authority is not powerless if the promoter’s declaration is arbitrary and unreasonable.Promoter cannot be given free run in deciding time for completion of a project thereby adversely impacting the interest of the prospective Allottees.

 In the Matter of M/s. Parador Promoters Amritsar Private Limited vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Complaint no.Appeal no. 113 of 2019 decided on 03.07.2020 before Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

Facts of the case: 

• The Promoter obtained license on 13.06.2019 to develop a residential colony within a period of 5 years. 

• The period commenced from 13.06.2019 and ended on 12.06.2024 with a stipulation that the development work must be completed within the said period. 

• The Promoter applied to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab for registration of the project. Order passed by Punjab Authority: 

• The Authority accepted the registration of the project but allowed the timeline for completion of the project up to 12.06.2023 i.e a period of 4 years instead of 5 years. 

• The Punjab Authority observed that even though the license to develop the colony is valid up to 12.06.2024, the license of the Promoter is valid only up to 19.12.2022 . Secondly, though Change of land use is for 93.265 Acres, only 70.264 Acres is proposed to be developed in Phase I. Balance 23.001 Acre is proposed in Phase 2. Since the Promoter is not taking up the entire Group Housing in one phase, the date of completion should be 12.06.2023.

• Aggrieved by the said order of the Authority, the Promoter filed appeal before the Punjab RERA Appellate Tribunal. 

Issue before Appellate Tribunal: 

•     Whether the Act entitles the Authority to reduce the completion period of the project while registering the project? 

Promoter’s contentions: 

1. Promoter relied on section 5(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It challenged the ability of the RERA authority to vary the period applied by the promoter in the application. 

2. Reference was also made to section 6 of the RERA Act stating that a license granted to the Promoter for 5 years could not have been varied to its disadvantage while registering the project. It necessarily had to be commensurate with the period prescribed in the license. Any other interpretation would render the provision of section 6 of the Act illusory. 

3. Promoter claimed that it has now been deprived of the right to seek extension which had it not been restricted to 4 years 1 2018 (1) ABR 558 by the Authority, would have given the Promoter 6 years by including the extended period of one year. 

4. Referring to Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India 1 , it stated that the observations of this judgment can only be applied to ongoing projects. 

5. Promoter lastly contended that no reasoning was given by the Authority while reducing the period and hence decision has to be revisited. Authority’s contentions: 

The Authority opposed the Promoter’s appeal stating: 

1. Under Section 18 of the Act the Authority may, based on facts of each case and for reasons recorded in writing, extend the registration granted to a project. 

2. That extension of registration is not a matter of right but it is dependent on circumstances that the Promoter has to establish to be beyond his control i.e due to force majeure.

3. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India (supra) holding that in case the promoter mentions unreasonable period to complete construction, certainly the authority would not register such an application of the promoter, taking into consideration the facts of each case. 

Verdict of Appellate Tribunal: 

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of Authority in reducing the period of completion of project and dismissed the appeal of the Promoter. It observed that:

(i) The Authority is not bound by the declaration of the Promoter under section 4(2)(1)(c). It placed reliance on Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India (Supra) and stated that Authority is not powerless if the promoter’s declaration is arbitrary and unreasonable. Promoter cannot be given free run in deciding time for completion of a project thereby adversely impacting the interest of the prospective Allottees. 

(ii) The Tribunal rejected the Promoter’s contention that the observation of the judgement of Neelkamal case is only applicable to the ongoing project. The tribunal stated that no such distinction manifests from the provisions of Act or the observation of the judgment. 

(iii) The RERA Act does not specifically say that the period of license and the declaration made by the Promoter in terms of section 4(2)(1)(c) have to be coterminous. 

(iv) The Tribunal held that the one-line reason given by the authority for reducing the time period is sufficient. Merely because it is not set out in detail cannot ipso facto be a ground to hold it a non-speaking order.

x

Only one condition of Either 500 Square meter of land or number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases, need to be satisfied under section 3(2) of the RERA Act.

In the Matter of Geetanjali Aman Constructions Vs Hrishikesh Ramesh Paranjpe Complaint no. SC10000672 decided on 10.07.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal 

The Bench of Indira Jain J. Chairperson, SumantKolhe, Member (J), S.S. Sandhu, Member (A) of the Mumbai RERA Tribunal, held by the ratio of 2:1 that only one condition need to be satisfied

under section 3(2) of the RERA Act which states that no registration is                         required in those project

where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square meters or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases. It was held principal question that needs to be addressed in this appeal revolves around the interpretation of word ―or‖ used in clause (a) of Section 3(2) of RERA. The crux is whether ―or‖ has to be read conjunctively or disjunctively. Needless to state that need to interpret the provisions of law would arise only when there is ambiguity left or a doubt is created in understanding the provisions. In our view in understanding the provision of law what should be done when the words are clear and unambiguous is to give the words that meaning which they convey plainly, irrespective of the consequence