RERA Cases Weekly Round Up: 11th January To 18th January, 2026
Shivani PS
20 Jan 2026 9:31 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
PS Group Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Ayush Trade-links Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 2
Forum Projects Private Limited & Ors. v. Chittaranjan Choudhury & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 1
Sanju Daulatraj Desai v. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 5
Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh, 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 4
Parth Developer v. Yogesh Mahajan & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 3
Alok Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Intofinity Promoters Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 15
Shobitha R v. President, Sankalpa Welfare Society (R.), 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 13
Kavita Marwah & Anr. v. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 14
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Reports (REAT)
West Bengal REAT
Carpet Area Means Net Usable Space, Cannot Be Diluted By Engineering Tolerance: WBREAT
Case Title: PS Group Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Ayush Tradelinks Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 2
Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 013/2025 and WBREAT/APPEAL No. 016/2025
The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) held that “carpet area” must strictly conform to the statutory definition of net usable floor area. It ruled that promoters cannot rely on tolerance clauses, plaster thickness, or engineering explanations to justify a shortfall in the promised area. A coram of Chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and Administrative Member Dr. Subrat Mukherjee observed that “the intention of law maker was to protect the interest of consumers in real estate sector apart from allowing engineering tolerance, construction adjustments etc. which may be required in real estate project. So, the tolerance is allowed only in sanctioned plan, layout plan, fixtures and amenities which will primarily impact common facilities, structure and construction of building than the individual flat of consumers for which he has signed agreement and paid for allocated carpet area at unit cost "
It held that “for the purpose of determining carpet area, the controlling standard is the statutory definition under WBHIRA which mandates measurement of net usable floor area excluding wall thickness, plaster, finishes and structural components. The method of raw wall to raw wall measurement advocated by the Promoter and the inclusion of plaster or enhanced wall thickness are not in keeping with the statute.”
Case Title: Forum Projects Private Limited & Ors. v. Chittaranjan Choudhury & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (WB) 1
Case Number: WBREAT/APPEAL NO. 008/2025
The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld an interim order against real estate developer Forum Projects Private Limited. The order restrains the company from selling, transferring, or otherwise dealing with any part of its luxury residential project “Atmosphere” on Kolkata's EM Bypass. A bench of Chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and Administrative Member Dr. Subrat Mukherjee dismissed the developer's appeal. It held that “the interim directions passed by the learned Regulatory Authority are justified and it should not be interfered with at this stage.”
It made it clear that contractual clauses could not override the law, observing that “the maxim 'there will be no estoppel against statute' neatly applies to the matter on hand.” The tribunal also clarified that proceedings under real estate law are independent of private arbitration disputes and that the regulator was well within its powers to step in and grant interim protection.
Madhya Pradesh REAT
MahaREAT Grants Interim Relief to Homebuyer, Says RERA Jurisdiction Not Ousted by Arbitration Clause
Case Title: Sanju Daulatraj Desai v. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 5
Case No.: Misc. Application No. 770 of 2025 in Appeal No. AT06/00774/2025
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), Mumbai, granted interim relief to a homebuyer of the "Rustomjee Crown" project, holding that an arbitration clause in an allocation letter cannot be deemed to oust RERA's jurisdictional power. Additionally, in order to avoid future third-party complications, the Tribunal imposed a status quo on the subject flat and held that a developer cannot demand more than 10% of the consideration without a registered agreement for sale.
Relying on the Bombay High Court decision in M/s. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rahul Pagariya, the Tribunal led by a two-member bench, comprising of S. S. Shinde J. (Chairperson) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member), held that "the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority is not ousted, even if the agreement between the promoter and the allottee contains arbitration clause."
Landowner In Joint Venture With Developer Not A Homebuyer Under RERA: Madhya Pradhesh REAT
Case Title: Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 4
Case Number: Appeal No. 131/2020
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) held that a landowner who enters into a joint venture with a developer for a real estate project cannot claim the status of an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and must instead be treated as a co-promoter. A bench of Chairman Justice V.P.S. Chauhan and Judicial Member P.C. Gupta said the RERA Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the dispute was not between a promoter and a homebuyer.
The tribunal observed that “a co-promoter cannot be considered as an allottee, even if there is any condition for receiving consideration under the agreement.” Referring to the definition of “promoter” under the Act, it held that a person who contributes land and participates in the development assumes the role of a promoter. It further clarified that "If any dispute arises between the co-promoters in relation to the agreement dated 22/08/2012 or if there is any breach in regards to the joint venture agreement between the parties or promoters, they can take the recourse of civil suit or consumer redressal forum but the dispute would not come under the ambit and scope of the Act."
Case Title: Parth Developer v. Yogesh Mahajan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MP) 3
Case Number: Appeal No. 32/2025
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) held that an Enforcement Officer under the RERA law is not “the Authority” and therefore has no power to direct a developer to complete project amenities. The tribunal ruled that any such order is without jurisdiction and has no force in law.
The bench, comprising Chairman Justice V.P.S. Chauhan and Judicial Member P.C. Gupta, while dealing with an appeal filed by Parth Developer against a 2022 order of a RERA Enforcement Officer, observed that “Enforcement Officer is not an Authority,” and added that “if any order passed by the Enforcement Officer, who is not having a jurisdiction to pass that order, the order can be categorized that order passed by the coram non judice and if any order passed by the coram non judicehaving no force and it is nonest."
Real Estate Regulatory Authority Reports (RERA)
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title: Alok Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Intofinity Promoters Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 16
Case Number: Complaint No. CC12502984
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) held that collective grievances affecting a real estate project must be pursued by a homeowners' association or with the backing of a majority of allottees, and not by a few individuals acting in their personal capacity. Dismissing a complaint filed by five homebuyers of the 'Kohinoor Kaleido – Phase 1' project in Pune, a bench comprising Member Mahesh Pathak held that “In the absence of such authorization, issues of a collective nature cannot be adjudicated in a complaint filed by a few allottees in their individual capacity.”
MahaRERA siding with the developer, held that the reliefs sought related to matters affecting all allottees and, in certain respects, the project as a whole. The homebuyers, it noted, had failed to show that they were authorised by a majority of allottees or by any registered association. On that limited ground, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint without examining the merits of the allegations. It granted liberty to the homebuyers to file a fresh complaint limited to their individual grievances or to approach the Authority through a duly constituted association of allottees for collective issues.
Karnataka RERA
K-RERA To Levy Penalties On Builders For Non-Submission Of Annual Audit Reports For FY 2024–25
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has issued a circular mandating the imposition of annual penalties on promoters who have failed to submit their annual audit reports for their housing projects for the Financial Year 2024–2025.
Referring to its powers under Sections 38(1) and 60 of the Act, the Authority said that promoters who failed to meet the December 31, 2025 deadline would be liable to penalties. The penalty will apply for every financial year of default and will depend on the project's total estimated cost. Under the penalty schedule set out in the circular, projects with an estimated cost of less than Rs. 25 crore will attract a penalty of Rs. 20,000. Projects with an estimated cost above Rs. 25 crore and up to Rs. 50 crore will be fined Rs. 25,000. For projects above Rs. 50 crore and up to Rs. 100 crore, the penalty is Rs. 50,000. Projects with an estimated cost exceeding Rs. 100 crore will be liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.
The Authority stated that promoters must submit the pending audit report for FY 2024–25 and pay the applicable penalty through the RERA e-payment system, which has been enabled on the K-RERA portal under the annual audit report submission option.
Case Title: Shobitha R v. President, Sankalpa Welfare Society (R.)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 13
Case Number : Complaint No: 00547/2025
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) ordered a Welfare Society to reimburse an allottee over ₹22 lakh with interest for the entire cost of a plot in an unregistered project. The Authority, led by Chairman Rakesh Singh, on 12th January, 2026, made it clear that if a welfare organisation develops and sells real estate, it qualifies as 'Promoter' under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The Bench clarified that it cannot avoid its duties by claiming to be a non-commercial company. The Bench observed that "mere registration as a welfare society does not immunize an entity from compliance with statutory obligations under other laws, including RERA, if it undertakes activities that amount to real estate development and sale."
The Authority further noted that the society had collected of funds without registration and had blatantly violated statutory obligations under sections 3, 4 and 13 of the Act constituting misrepresentation and unauthorised real estate activity. It dismissed the argument regarding the pending civil suit, stating that K-RERA has "independent jurisdiction under Section 31 to address statutory violations, regardless of parallel civil proceedings."
Punjab RERA
Offering Possession Of Flat Without Occupation Certificate Is Illegal: Punjab RERA
Case Title: Kavita Marwah & Anr. v. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 14
Complaint Number: GC No. 0446 of 2023
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ruled that a developer cannot legally offer possession of a flat without first obtaining mandatory statutory approvals and that extensions granted for project completion do not override the possession date promised to a homebuyer. RERA Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal, while partly allowing a complaint against Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, said that “the extension in completion by RERA, Punjab, has no relevance and bearing on the date of possession mentioned in the 'Allotment Letter' issued to the allottee.”
Emphasising the prolonged delay, the authority observed that “since the construction has been delayed inordinately, therefore, as per provisions of Section 18, the complainant is entitled to claim interest for the period of delay.”