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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaway

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

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.

Long term leases would amount to sale and hence lessees will also fall within the definition of "allottee”

 In the Matter of Manju Mahendra Joshi Vs. Lavasa Corporation ltd. Complaint no. AT006000000000096, decided on 17.04.2018 beforeThe Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In the Matter of Manju Mahendra Joshi Vs. Lavasa Corporation ltd. Complaint no. AT006000000000096, decided on 17.04.2018 beforeThe Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ruled that “ Long term leases would amount to sale and hence lessees will also fall within the definition of allottee”

This Order was further upheld by the Order of Bombay high Court in Lavasa Corporation Limited v. Manju Narendra Joshi (C.A. No. 791 of 2018) decided on 07.08.2018.

On behalf of the lessor it was contended that since the impugned agreement was an 'agreement of lease' and not an ‘agreement for sale’, the provisions of RERA would not be applicable.

The definition of ‘promoter’ under section 2(zk) of RERA was relied upon by the lessor, as it contemplates a person, who constructs or caused to be constructed an apartment ‘for the purpose of selling’.

Reliance was also placed on the definition of 'allottee', under Section 2(d) of RERA, which specifically provides that allottee does not include a person to whom plot, apartment or building is ‘given on rent’.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Palshikar (HUF) v. CIT, M.P., Nagpur and Bhandara, 1988 (172) ITR 311, wherein it was held that lease for a period of 99 (ninety nine) years would amount to transfer of capital assets. A judgment of the Madras High Court was also relied upon, which held that a lease for a period of 99 (ninety nine) years is an alienation as a sale, and mere use of the word 'lease' or the fact that a long term is fixed would not by itself make the document in lease.

The intention of RERA, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335 was also looked at, which was to protect the interest of consumers who have invested substantial amounts in real estate projects. If they are excluded from the definition of 'Allottee' and thereby from the protection given under the Act, by giving restrictive meaning to the term 'Allottee', the very object of RERA would stand frustrated.