The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is India’s central law designed to regulate real-estate projects and protect homebuyers. It introduces mandatory project registration, promoter obligations, buyer rights, and dedicated regulatory authorities. The Act’s primary purpose is to bring transparency and fairness into India’s real estate sector. The law was notified in phases: one major notification with first set of 61 sections on May 1, 2016, and the remaining 31 sections on May 1, 2017.
1. Key Provisions of the Central RERA Act
1.1 Registration of Projects & Agents (Sections 3–10)
Promoters must register any real-estate project that meets the threshold (e.g., land area above 500 sq m or more than 8 apartments) before sale or advertising. This applies to ongoing projects that had not obtained completion certificates as on the Act’s commencement. The application involves detailed disclosures (sanctioned plans, title status, completion schedule, etc.). Once approved, a unique RERA registration number is issued, and the registration is valid for the project’s duration. Agents facilitating sale of projects must register too and cannot market unregistered projects.
1.2 Functions and Duties of Promoters (Sections 11–18)
Promoters must make full disclosures and quarterly updates about the project. They must ensure that any advertisement is truthful; before asking an allottee to pay more than a small booking advance (commonly no more than 10% in many states) there must be an agreement for sale. They must adhere to sanctioned plans; significant changes require consent of at least two-thirds allottees and the regulator’s approval. They must create a separate escrow account for buyer advances (often interpreted as requiring 70% of advance funds to be kept in that account). Upon completion, they must execute conveyance in favor of the allottee. Importantly, under Section 18, if the promoter fails to hand over possession in time (or comply with the agreement), the allottee has the right to demand a refund with interest or continue with the project and claim compensation for delay.
1.3 Rights & Duties of Allottees (Section 19)
Allottees (buyers) are entitled to timely possession as per the agreement, to receive complete information from the promoter, and to seek remedies in case of promoter default. They must comply with the sale agreement and pay as agreed. The law protects allottees but also expects them to fulfill their obligations.
1.4 Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Sections 20–40)
Each state (and Union Territory) must establish a RERA Authority. These Authorities are statutory bodies empowered to register projects/agents, maintain public websites of project data, receive complaints, enforce the law, conduct inquiries, and issue orders. The Act empowers them with large quasi-judicial powers (summons, production of documents, interim orders). Section 29 directs Authorities to dispose of complaints “as far as possible” within 60 days. The Authority’s order, if not complied with, may be executed as arrears of land revenue under Section 40.
1.5 Central Advisory Council (Sections 41–42)
To ensure national consistency, the Act creates a Central Advisory Council chaired by the Union Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs. The Council includes representatives from State Governments, RERA Authorities, builders’ associations, consumer groups, and professionals.
Its job is to advise the Central Government on policy matters, growth of the real-estate sector, consumer protection, and best practices. Though not a decision-making body, it helps coordinate between Centre and States and ensures that implementation remains uniform across India.
1.6 Appellate Tribunal (Sections 43–58)
For appeals, the Act provides for a dedicated Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. An appeal lies against the Authority’s order, and the Tribunal must decide such appeals as expeditiously as possible. Before a promoter appeals an order involving refund/penalty, the Act under Section 43(5) requires a pre-deposit (commonly around 30% of the amount awarded or equivalent). The Tribunal’s decisions can be further appealed on a question of law to the state High Court.
1.7 Offences, Penalties & Adjudication (Sections 59–72)
The Act provides for real penalties: If a promoter sells or advertises a project without registration, or fails in his obligations, penalties up to 10% of project cost can be imposed, and in some cases imprisonment of up to three years may follow. Other violations attract smaller fines. If any party fails to obey a RERA order (by Authority or Tribunal), daily fines up to 5% of the project cost for promoters (or unit cost for buyers) may apply. The Act also provides that buyers can bring claims for compensation for loss due to false advertising or structural defects (via Adjudicating Officers under Section 71). The defect liability period for structural defects is 5 years from possession.
1.8 Finance, Accounts, Audit and Reports (Sections 73–78)
Every RERA Authority maintains its own fund, into which fees, penalties, and grants are credited. This fund meets the expenses of the Authority. The Authority must keep proper accounts, have them audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and submit annual reports to the State Government, which are then laid before the Legislature. These provisions ensure financial transparency and independence of RERA Authorities while keeping them accountable to the public through audited reporting.
1.9 Miscellaneous Provisions (Sections 73–92)
The Act states that RERA rights are in addition to other laws (Section 88), and that where there is conflict, RERA generally prevails (Section 89) unless another law with a stronger clause override. It bars civil court jurisdiction for matters under RERA (Section 79) though this does not prevent consumer courts or insolvency tribunals. States were required to frame rules under Section 84, within six months of the Act’s commencement. The Act created a Central Advisory Council (Section 41) to advise the Union Government on policy.
2. Landmark Supreme Court Decisions
1) M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2020) – RERA vs Consumer Forum
The facts of the case are: A group of homebuyers had filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Imperia Structures (a developer) for delay in handing over apartments. The project was also registered under RERA. The developer argued that by virtue of Section 79 of RERA (which bars civil court jurisdiction), the homebuyers could not pursue a parallel remedy under the Consumer Protection Act. Essentially, the builder claimed that RERA is an exclusive forum and consumers must abandon any consumer court claims.
The key issue before the Court: Does RERA prevent homebuyers from approaching consumer courts for relief? In other words, is the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 barred once RERA applies?
Decision: The Supreme Court firmly ruled in favor of the homebuyers. In its judgment dated November 2, 2020, the Court held that RERA does not restrict or take away the jurisdiction of consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act. The two laws operate independently and provide additional, concurrent remedies to aggrieved buyers. The Court observed that Section 79 of RERA bars jurisdiction of civil courts, but consumer commissions are not “civil courts” in this context. Further, Section 18 of RERA (which gives the right to refund) and Section 88 (RERA’s provisions to be in addition to other laws) make it clear that RERA was intended to be an additional remedy, not an exclusive one. Therefore, a homebuyer can seek relief under RERA and still file a consumer complaint for deficiency in service. The builder’s contention was rejected and the NCDRC’s order (which had directed refund with interest) was upheld.
Impact: This verdict is a huge win for consumers. It affirmed that homebuyers have parallel remedies they may choose RERA authorities or consumer fora (or even other remedies like insolvency, subject to law) for relief. The judgment ensured that RERA is not used as a shield by builders to avoid accountability in consumer courts. Post-Imperia, it is settled that Section 79 of RERA does not bar consumer complaints, since consumer courts are special forums and RERA is “in addition” to such laws. This allows buyers to take advantage of whichever remedy is more efficacious in their situation. It also set the tone that RERA would be interpreted liberally in favor of consumers’ rights.
2) Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) – RERA vs Insolvency (IBC)
The facts of the case are: This case was a challenge to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendment of 2018 which classified homebuyers (allottees) as financial creditors in real estate projects. Real estate developers argued that, with RERA in place to address builder-buyer issues, treating homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC (allowing them to trigger insolvency proceedings) was arbitrary and would subject them to two parallel regimes. Multiple writ petitions were filed, led by Pioneer Urban, contending that the IBC amendment was unconstitutional and that RERA should be the governing law for real estate, not insolvency law.
The key issue before the Court: The core issue was whether homebuyers can be recognized as financial creditors under IBC and whether the remedies under RERA conflict with the IBC. In effect, if a developer defaults, can allottees initiate insolvency proceedings, or does RERA override the IBC process for real estate matters?
Decision: In August 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the IBC amendment and provided a harmonious interpretation of RERA and IBC. The Court ruled that RERA and the Insolvency Code “must coexist” RERA is not meant to exclude other remedies. However, in case of direct conflict, the IBC will prevail due to its later enactment and overriding clause. The judges observed that RERA does not bar homebuyers from approaching the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under IBC, and in fact, these remedies are complementary. A homebuyer can seek relief under RERA, consumer law, or file insolvency petitions, the choice depends on the situation. The Court noted that the remedies for allottees are concurrent and additional; RERA does not extinguish a buyer’s right to other legal actions. Importantly, the judgment stated that while both laws operate, if insolvency proceedings are initiated, the moratorium and resolution process under IBC would have primacy (meaning RERA authorities must defer to the NCLT once a case is admitted). The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, holding that treating homebuyers as financial creditors was justified to protect their interests, given that money advanced by homebuyers has the “commercial effect of borrowing” for the builder.
Impact: This verdict was a major victory for homebuyers and settled that RERA is not a singular remedy. By affirming the IBC amendment, the Supreme Court opened another powerful avenue: allottees can use insolvency proceedings as a pressure tactic against defaulting developers (for example, to recover investments or ensure stalled projects are resolved). At the same time, the judgment assuaged fears of conflicting judgments by clarifying the hierarchy: in case of irreconcilable conflict, the IBC will override RERA on account of being a later law with a non-obstante clause. The Court’s message was that RERA, IBC, and consumer law all operate in their own spheres, none inherently trumps the other except when a direct inconsistency arises. After this ruling, many homebuyers have successfully used IBC to either get refunds or force project restructurings, while RERA continues to function for regulatory oversight. The Pioneer case thus reinforced that RERA is not a “special law” that displaces insolvency remedies, and developers are answerable on multiple fronts for their defaults.
3) Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) vs. State of West Bengal (2021) – Striking Down a Parallel State Law
The facts of the case are: Instead of notifying RERA, the West Bengal state government had enacted its own law in 2017 called the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act (WB-HIRA) to regulate real estate. This state law was very similar to RERA, but having a parallel legislation meant West Bengal did not come under the central RERA regime. FPCE, a homebuyers’ association, challenged WB-HIRA as unconstitutional, arguing that since Parliament had already made a law (RERA) on the subject (a Concurrent List matter), the state law (without Presidential assent) was void for repugnancy with the central law. Essentially, the case was about whether a state can cherry-pick provisions and create a “mirror” law instead of implementing RERA.
The key issue before the Court: Was WB-HIRA valid, or was it unconstitutional due to conflict with RERA? Did West Bengal have legislative competence to enact a law overlapping almost entirely with the RERA Act passed by Parliament?
Decision: The Supreme Court, in a judgment on May 4, 2021, struck down the West Bengal HIRA act in its entirety. The Court found that WB-HIRA was “virtually identical” to the RERA Act and covered the same subject matter without any significant deviation. Therefore, under Article 254 of the Constitution, the state law was repugnant to the central law. The Bench (Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah) held that RERA was intended to be an exhaustive code for real estate regulation, and WB-HIRA creating a “parallel regime” was impermissible. Notably, the Court pointed out that many provisions of WB-HIRA either directly clashed or were copied from RERA, indicating there was no room for a separate state Act. West Bengal had also failed to obtain the required Presidential assent for a law in the Concurrent List that differed from a central law. The argument that RERA allowed state-specific laws (via Sections 88, 89) was rejected, those sections did not save an entirely parallel statute with the same field and scope. Thus, WB-HIRA was declared unconstitutional, and West Bengal was directed to immediately implement the central RERA. All pending matters under the state law were transferred to the RERA Authority.
Impact: This judgment reinforced the supremacy of the central RERA Act in achieving a uniform regulatory regime. It sent a strong signal to states that fragmentation of real estate law is not allowed, states must implement RERA (with their own rules and Authorities as permitted) but cannot enact a statute that displaces or replicates the central Act. Following this verdict, West Bengal moved to notify RERA rules and set up a RERA Authority under the central Act. For homebuyers and builders in West Bengal, this brought them on par with other states in terms of protections and obligations. Legally, the FPCE judgment is significant for clarifying the repugnancy doctrine: if a state law “occupies the same field” as a Parliament law and is substantially identical, it will be void. It also highlighted that RERA’s “in addition to other laws” clause does not give carte blanche to states to deviate on core provisions. In summary, the Supreme Court affirmed that RERA is to be uniformly applied across India, and states can only fine-tune via rules in areas the Act permits.
4) M/s Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (2021) – Clarifying RERA’s Scope and Powers
The facts of the case are: Newtech Promoters (and other builders) in Uttar Pradesh had challenged certain orders of the UP RERA Authority. The case that reached the Supreme Court was essentially a clubbing of several legal questions arising from RERA’s implementation: whether RERA applied to projects launched before the Act, whether RERA authorities could grant refunds and interest or that power lay only with adjudicating officers, whether a single-member bench of the Authority could decide cases, and the validity of the pre-deposit requirement for appeals, among others. The promoters contended that some provisions were being misused or interpreted incorrectly for example, they argued RERA should not apply “retroactively” to projects that began before 2016 and questioned the delegation of powers and appeal pre-deposit as onerous. The homebuyers, on the other side, were seeking enforcement of RERA orders for refunds/compensation due to delays.
The key issues before the Court: The Supreme Court framed multiple key issues, including: (1) Is RERA’s application retroactive (covering ongoing projects started before enactment)? (2) Can RERA Authorities themselves order refunds/interest or must such monetary relief be given only by the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71? (3) Can an Authority delegate functions to single members or bench of two, etc.? (4) Is the pre-deposit of money (Section 43(5)) for filing appeals constitutional? (5) Can RERA Authority issue recovery certificates for unpaid buyer refunds, treating them as land revenue arrears?
Decision: In a comprehensive judgment (11th November 2021), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court answered all questions largely in favor of strengthening RERA’s consumer-protection objective:
- The Court held that RERA is retroactive in effect (not fully retrospective, but retroactive) meaning it applies to all ongoing projects launched before 2016 that had not obtained completion certificate by the Act’s commencement. This ensured that incomplete projects are brought under RERA’s ambit so that homebuyers in those projects also benefit from the Act. Promoters cannot avoid RERA by saying their project started earlier.
- On the powers to order refund/interest: The Supreme Court clarified that RERA authorities and adjudicating officers have distinct roles. If a complaint involves purely a refund, interest, or any directing of compliance (non-compensatory relief), the RERA Authority (or its bench) can decide it. If a case involves adjudging compensation for a breach, the dedicated Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 should decide that. In other words, grant of interest for delay or refund is within the Authority’s powers, and the adjudicator comes into play when quantifying compensation for, say, loss or damages. This resolved confusion in some states about forum shopping.
- The Court upheld the delegation powers in the Act (Section 81), validating that UP-RERA’s move to delegate complaints to a single-member or smaller bench was lawful. Given the volume of cases, this was crucial for efficiency. The bench noted that if the delegation is properly notified, one-member of the Authority can hear and decide matters, it’s not necessary that the full three-member Authority sign every order.
- The pre-deposit requirement (where a developer must deposit money before appealing) was fully upheld as constitutional and not arbitrary. The Supreme Court reasoned that this provision is in line with legislative intent to discourage frivolous appeals by defaulting promoters and to ensure they first demonstrate good faith by part-paying the award. The condition was seen as reasonable protecting decree-holders (homebuyers) during the pendency of appeal, and thus it remains enforceable.
- The Court also confirmed that RERA Authorities have the power to issue Recovery Certificates to recover unpaid amounts from developers as arrears of land revenue. It recognized that Section 40 explicitly allows this, and authorities can coordinate with district collectors to attach properties of the promoter to recover dues.
Overall, all arguments by developers to weaken RERA’s reach were rejected. The SC explicitly said RERA’s provisions must be read considering its consumer-protection spirit and any interpretation favoring that spirit should be adopted.
Impact: The Newtech judgment is a cornerstone for RERA enforcement. It removed ambiguities about RERA’s coverage and powers, thus: (a) All unfinished projects (regardless of launch date) are within RERA, developers cannot escape by citing lack of retrospectivity. (b) Buyers gained clarity that they could approach the RERA Authority itself for refunds and interest (speedier process), while heavy compensation matters might go to adjudicator, preventing unnecessary procedural hurdles. (c) State authorities can now handle cases in flexible manner (e.g., single-member benches), speeding up resolution, a big boost given thousands of pending complaints. (d) The pre-deposit rule continues to safeguard buyers’ awards on appeal, meaning developers must part with a substantial sum before any appeal, which has deterred many meritless appeals. After this judgment, RERA authorities in various states more confidently issued orders knowing their jurisdiction and powers were affirmed by the apex court. In sum, Newtech Promoters vs UP closed many loopholes and solidified RERA as a potent tool for homebuyers.
5) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2022) – Homebuyers’ Choice of Relief & Unfair Contract Terms
The facts of the case are: In this case, a homebuyer (Sushma Shiroor) had booked an apartment from Experion Developers, but the project was delayed beyond the promised date. The buyer approached the NCDRC (consumer forum) seeking refund of the amount paid with interest. The builder argued that as per the apartment buyer’s agreement, the buyer was only entitled to delayed possession and limited compensation as per a clause, not a full refund. The agreement had a typical one-sided clause limiting the builder’s liability for delays. The NCDRC, however, found those contract terms unfair (heavily one-sided against the buyer) and ordered a refund with interest, citing the buyer’s right to get her money back if possession is not delivered on time. The developer then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The key issues before the Court: Can a homebuyer choose refund over possession when the builder fails to deliver on time, even if the sale agreement gave only a limited delay compensation? More broadly, the issue was whether consumer courts (or RERA) can ignore one-sided contractual terms and grant reliefs (full refund or compensation) as per the consumer’s request. This touched on the principle of freedom to choose remedy and the invalidity of unfair terms in builder-buyer agreements.
Decision: The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated April 7, 2022, took a very pro-buyer stance. It affirmed that if a developer fails to hand over possession as promised, the homebuyer has the ultimate choice whether to seek a refund or still accept possession with compensation. The Court upheld the NCDRC’s view that the buyer cannot be forced to remain in a delayed project and accept paltry compensation dictated by a one-sided contract. It laid down that consumer forums have the power to award the remedy that the homebuyer chooses, provided it is justified on merits. The Supreme Court allowed threefold choices to buyers facing delayed possession: (1) claim refund of monies paid, with interest and compensation, (2) opt to take possession of the apartment along with fair compensation for the delay, or (3) seek possession and additional compensation for hardships (if the forum finds it appropriate). In essence, “the freedom to choose the necessary relief is of the consumer, and it is the duty of the Courts to honor it.”. The developer’s objection was that the contract only allowed a small delay penalty and since an Occupancy Certificate was obtained during litigation the buyer must take possession, was rejected. The SC agreed with the findings that the agreement’s clauses were one-sided and could not override the buyer’s statutory rights under consumer law and RERA (for timely possession or refund).
Impact: This judgment is significant in affirming the supremacy of consumer rights over unfair contract terms. It echoed an earlier SC ruling (Pioneer Urban vs. Govindan Raghavan, 2019) which decried one-sided builder agreements. The Experion ruling clearly signals that courts and RERA authorities should not hesitate to grant full refunds with interest to buyers when possession is inordinately delayed, if that is what the buyer wants. It also means developers cannot enforce clauses that say “no refund” or “only x amount per month for delay” once they fail their fundamental obligation. The practical effect is that builders are under greater pressure to meet deadlines or negotiate amicable settlements, since a buyer can legally exit the project and make the builder pay back everything with interest. Furthermore, the decision underscores that consumer forums (and by extension RERA) have wide discretion to do justice in such cases, whether by way of refund or by granting possession with additional compensation. For homebuyers, this is empowering: they are not locked into the contract’s limited remedies. For the industry, it reinforces that fairness is now expected in contracts and behavior, regulatory bodies will strike down blatant imbalance. In summary, the Supreme Court in Experion vs Shiroor cemented the principle that delayed homebuyers are entitled to meaningful relief of their choice, and that the legal system will side with consumers when contracts are unreasonable
6) Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India (Amrapali saga) (2019 and continuing directions)
The facts of the case are: The Supreme Court’s decision in Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India (2019) arose from the massive collapse of the Amrapali Group’s real-estate projects in Noida and Greater Noida. Thousands of homebuyers had paid nearly the entire consideration for their flats, but the projects remained incomplete for years. Forensic audits ordered by the Court revealed shocking diversion of homebuyers’ funds to unrelated companies and personal accounts of directors. The evidence established widespread fraud, mismanagement, and collusion with certain officials of the local authorities, leaving buyers without homes and with little recourse.
The key issues before the Supreme Court were how to protect homebuyers’ interests after the developer’s collapse, whether the Amrapali Group’s RERA registrations and land-lease rights should continue considering fraud findings, and what institutional mechanism could ensure completion of stalled projects while holding the wrongdoers accountable.
Decision:
In its judgment dated 23 July 2019, the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of cancelling all RERA registrations and lease deeds held by Amrapali Group entities, holding that the promoters had defrauded homebuyers and violated every fiduciary and statutory obligation. The Court vested all rights of the promoters in a Court Receiver Senior Advocate R. Venkataramani, authorizing him to execute tripartite agreements, transfer titles, and oversee the completion of the stalled projects. The National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) was appointed to complete the projects under judicial supervision, entitled to an 8 percent commission. Buyers were directed to deposit their outstanding payments into a dedicated UCO Bank account to finance the completion. Simultaneously, the Court restrained Noida and Greater Noida Authorities from selling flats or land to recover their dues, holding that recoveries must come only from attached properties of the promoters. The Enforcement Directorate was directed to investigate money-laundering and FEMA violations, while the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was ordered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against auditors who facilitated the fraud.
Impact:
The Amrapali ruling became a watershed in Indian real-estate law and enforcement of RERA. It demonstrated that where a developer grossly violates the Act and defrauds buyers, the Supreme Court can invoke its constitutional powers under Article 142 to ensure justice and completion of projects. The judgment reaffirmed that homebuyers’ interests prevail over those of lenders or local authorities when fraud is established. It also set a precedent for holding professionals like auditors, bankers, and public officials accountable for enabling corporate misconduct. Most importantly, it showcased that RERA’s principles of transparency, accountability, and consumer protection could be judicially enforced even in large-scale collapses of the housing sector.
3. Central and State Actions (Amendments, Circulars, Rules)
Central Government
The central Act itself has not undergone substantive amendments as of 2025. However:
- Commencement notifications: The bulk of the Act’s sections effective May 1, 2016; remaining parts May 1, 2017.
- The Government constituted/re-constituted the Central Advisory Council under Section 41 via Gazette Notifications (e.g., in 2022, 2023). These are policy-level rather than substantive changes.
- COVID-19 advisory (2020): The central government advised state RERA Authorities to treat the pandemic as a “force majeure” event and extend project completion timelines accordingly. Most states followed by granting special extensions.
- Clarifications issued on “long-term lease” being covered if the transaction is essentially like a sale (i.e., the developer is effectively distributing flats/units with buyer payments). Though not via formal amendment, this guidance has influenced state regulators.
Key State Rules/Circulars (Selected States)
Maharashtra (MahaRERA):
- Order No. 56/2024 (effective July 1, 2024): Required promoters of registration-eligible projects to maintain three separate bank accounts for funds received, withdrawals certified by professionals.
- Order 61/2024 — Clarification on Applicability of the Three-Account System
This order was issued after Order 56/2024 (three bank accounts).
It clarifies that the three-account system applies only to the “promoter” as defined in Section 2(zk) of RERA.
Landowners are required to comply only if:
- They are joint promoters registered as such in the project, or
- They have executed agreements with allottees directly or received money from them.
If the landowner’s role is limited to granting development rights and not collecting consideration, the three-account requirement does not automatically apply.
MahaRERA also directed that promoters must disclose the share structure (promoter vs landowner) at registration to avoid ambiguity.
Purpose: This clarification prevents confusion and potential double-compliance in joint development agreements, making it clear that “promoter liability” under the three-account system is not blanket-wide.
- Order No. 63/2024 (Oct 22, 2024): Introduced requirement of Section 15A covenant in agreements for registration-eligible projects.
- Order No. 46C/2025 (Apr 8, 2025): Introduced QR code and minimum font size norms for RERA registration numbers in project advertisements.
These strengthen enforcement infrastructure and visibility of compliance in Maharashtra.
Tamil Nadu (TNRERA):
- Circular No. TNRERA/A3/1675/2025 (May 7, 2025): Mandated display boards at all project sites. These boards must show project’s RERA registration number, estimated completion date, approvals obtained, and contact details of the promoter/TNRERA. This improves onsite transparency and is complementary to central disclosure requirements.
Uttar Pradesh (UP-RERA):
- Regulation Amendments: Sixth Amendment (Apr 11, 2025) and Seventh Amendment (Jul 23, 2025): These updated process flows, strengthened online hearing infrastructure, adjusted complaint fees and appeal protocols.
- Additional initiatives: UP-RERA reinforced that all sale agreements must specify carpet area (not super built-up area), and issued directives that project names used in advertising must match registration names. While the central Act mandates disclosure and truthful advertising, UP-RERA’s directive clarified the practice in its jurisdiction.
In each state, the core RERA Act remains unchanged, but implementation rules, circulars, and practice directives provide enhancements or local clarifications. These state-level modifications do not allow deviation from the central Act’s key protections; rather they strengthen or clarify them for local conditions.
4. Implications & Practical Take aways
For Promoters / Developers
- Early registration: Projects that qualify must register before marketing and sales. If they fail, severe penalties await.
- Financial discipline: The escrow (or equivalent) requirement and separate accounts mean developers must ensure strict fund management and robust audit controls.
- Contract clarity: Sale agreements must clearly reflect the promoter’s obligations, timeline, change-permissions, and buyer’s rights. One-sided clauses (especially on delay penalties or refunds) are now being struck down.
- Advertising compliance: Developers must mention the project’s RERA registration number, follow QR code and display norms (in states like Maharashtra), and avoid misleading claims.
- Risk of enforcement: The promoters must take seriously the refund/interest provisions and the broad powers of RERA Authorities and Tribunals. Non-compliance can hit both reputation and finances.
For Homebuyers / Allottees
- Check registration: Before booking, verify the project’s RERA registration number on your state’s portal, and examine the disclosures (plans, timeline, approvals).
- Know your rights: If possession is delayed, you may claim a refund with interest or take possession with compensation. You are not tied to only one remedy.
- Choose the right forum: You may go to the RERA Authority or the consumer forum. The choice should reflect the relief you seek and the speed required.
- Be vigilant: Make sure the sale agreement is aligned with RERA norms. Don’t ignore major deviations like super built-up area instead of carpet area, unknown promoter, or no escrow transparency.
- Act early: Once you suspect delay or default, raise the issue promptly. The 60 day guideline for disposal is more meaningful when the complaint is filed early.
For Legal/Compliance Professionals
- Understand forum-scope: Use Newtech Promoters decision to navigate when to approach the RERA Authority vs adjudicating officer vs Tribunal.
- Build enforcement strategy: Use the pre-deposit rule (for promoter appeals) as a lever in settlements. Developer reluctance to pre-deposit often opens negotiation space.
- State-specific matrix: Maintain a state-wise log of rules, circulars, display norms, advertising requirements, bank-account orders. While the central Act is uniform, these local rules affect practice significantly.
- Watch for amendments: Although the central Act is stable, state rules and judicial clarifications continue to evolve. Keeping up with those is key to advising clients effectively.
Conclusion
The RERA Act offers a robust regulatory and consumer-protection framework for real estate in India. With mandatory registration, clear developer obligations, enforceable buyer rights, and a dedicated dispute mechanism, it has significantly elevated transparency in the sector. The Supreme Court judgments reviewed above have strengthened the law’s practical power, ensuring that neither developers nor states can circumvent its objectives. While the central statute remains unchanged in major parts, its implementation via state rules, circulars, and regulatory actions continues to evolve. For stakeholders, understanding both the central law and the relevant state regime is essential.
Whether you’re a homebuyer seeking clarity, a developer steering compliance, or a legal advisor preparing to advise, RERA now gives you a framework to know your rights and obligations clearly. With due diligence and active monitoring, the real estate sector under RERA is edging closer to a future where buying a home doesn’t mean endless waiting, uncertainty, or hidden risk.
