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.

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.

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.

No Occupancy Certificate: Not The Only Criteria For Registration With RERA

 The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in its recent order has held that mere non-procurement of an occupancy certificate by a developer does not make the developer liable to register the real estate project1 under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Act).

This order has been passed following a complaint filed by Sulatana Dalal (Complainant) against Asia Group (Developer), before MahaRERA in relation to a project named as 'Miracle Mall' situated at Bhiwandi, Thane, Maharashtra. The Complainant's contention was that even though the building was completely occupied, the Developer had failed to obtain an occupation certificate and committed breach of law. Against this background, the Complainant sought directions from MahaRERA to register the building under the provisions of the Act. 

MahaRERA's Position On The Dispute

In the instant case, the Developer contended that all units of the concerned project were constructed after obtaining due permissions from the concerned authorities and all units in the building were sold to its customers prior to the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the concerned project was not required to be registered under the Act.

MahaRERA while adjudicating the dispute, looked at the pith and substance of the proviso to Section 3 of the Act. The proviso to Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:

"Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of this Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the said project within a period of three months from the date of commencement of this Act."

From a bare reading of the proviso, the intention of the legislators appears to clearly include all projects whose construction is ongoing and which have not received a CC. In order to fall within the premise of the aforementioned proviso to Section 3 of the Act, a real estate project is required to satisfy both these conditions – i.e., construction is ongoing and the project has not received a CC.

In the present factual matrix, the project got completed in 2012-13 and the Developer had failed to procure a CC, thereby satisfying only one out of the two conditions for registering a project under the Act. Note that the State of Maharashtra does not have a framework for issuance of a CC by its own competent authority, so the present order uses the terms 'completion certificate' and 'occupancy certificate' interchangeably.

In the instant case, the MahaRERA held that mere non-procurement of an OC will not trigger a registration requirement under the Act and dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

There was no ongoing construction activity in the project, where the Complainant resides.

The building where the Complainant resides had been occupied prior to the commencement of the Act and hence no registration under the Act is required.

If the Redevelopment project involves the Sale of flats to outside parties, then the builder becomes promoter under the act and the project is to be registered

 In the Matter of Indira Nagar Kaveri Apartments Owners Welfare Association v/s Navin Housing & Properties Pvt. Ltd. Complaint number 433/2019 ,

The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu  Real Estate Regulatory Authority observed that 

• an Agreement between existing flat owners and Builder intending to do redevelopment of the Society where the sale of flat to outside parties are also involved., “Very much constitute the standard joint development agreement for redevelopment  which is entered into between the existing flat owners and the promoter builder for demolition of the existing flats and construction of new flats in the said property. Therefore the day existing flat owners sign the deed of agreement with the promoter builder, the existing flat owners become an allottee and the respondent builder becomes the promoter under this act.”

• The Hon’ble Tribunal further added that it is the responsibility of the promoter to get the consent from the remaining flat owners to take up the redevelopment project.

• The Hon’ble Tribunal further declined to transfer the matter for arbitration adding that  “after the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) act, 2016 the real estate disputes and complaints will have to be adjudicated by the authority constituted under the act.” 

Complaints can be instituted against promoters in relation to both projects which have been registered with the authority or which are not registered with the authority

Simmi Sikka V/s M/S EMAAR MGF LAND LTD Complaint number RERA-GRG-7-2018

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram 

The judgement contains the following conclusions

• The RERA Act, nowhere mentions anywhere that it is applicable only for the registered projects.

• The RERA Act, provides certain categories of projects which are not required to be registered but these are within the ambit of the Act. These projects mentioned in section 3(2) have been taken out of the registration requirement but not out of the purview of other provisions of the Act.

• The provisions regarding registration and obligation during registration are applicable only for the registered projects.

• The obligations of the promoter’s post expiry of the validity of the registration provided in the Act are applicable to even the real estate projects exempted from the registration.

• The projects which were completed and handed over during the last 5 years are 

covered for the purpose of workmanship and structural defect liability.  A complaint may be filed by the allottee in such matter in case the possession of the real estate was within 5 years prior to the date of the complaint.

• All real estate projects are covered for land title defect liability

• A complaint pertaining to violation of the provisions of RERA Act, Haryana RERA Rules, and regulations thereunder, may be filed by any aggrieved person in respect of any real estate project as per the definition given in section 2(zn) of RERA Act.

Based on the above judgment, it may be concluded that registration of project and filing RERA complaint, both are separate activities. A RERA case can be filed even against the non-registered projects.

Agriculture lands which have not received Non Agriculture permissions (N.A permission) are not a real estate project as defined under Section 2(zn) of the Act and the same cannot be registered under Section 3 of the Act.

In the Matter of Mohommed Zoin Khan Versus M/s. Emnoy Properties india &  Ors Complaint number SC 10000227 The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority judgement contains the following conclusions :-

Agriculture lands which have not received Non Agriculture permissions, do not fall under the jurisdiction and need not register with RERA Authorities. Hon’ble Tribunal have upheld that Agriculture land and plots which have not received NA permissions are not Real Estate Projects and hence should not be registered.

The Hon’ble Tribunal observed ” We find that by applying the above observations to the facts of the case in hand, the Authority observes in para 10 of the order that the land under this Project is admittedly an agricultural land and till date no N.A. permission or order is granted by the competent Authority to develop the same. Consequently, the Authority has held that the subject project is not a real estate project as defined under Section 2(zn) of the Act and the same cannot be registered under Section 3 of the Act. ”

The Hon’ble Tribunal further added: “We have given a thoughtful consideration to the relevant provisions of the Act. In our view the real estate project as defined under Section 2(zn) contemplates development of land into plots or apartments. In case of an agricultural land, as is the case in the instant appeal, to be designated as a real estate project, necessary permissions are required to affect the development of the said land. Compliance of such a requirement also seems essential from the perspective of provisions under Section 11(4) detailing therein the obligations of a promoter and Section 4 for mandating the requirements of certain documents/ permissions necessary for registration of the project under Section 3 of the Act. In this regard, we note that Complainant has utterly failed to establish that the said land had all necessary N.A. or other permissions for its development and for undertaking its registration as real estate project under the Act.”