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.
