Is justice served or is it simply another delay? Focusing on recent RERA judgments and compensation cases

Introduction

With the implementation of RERA in 2016, the hope was that homebuyers would no longer be in a helpless position against delayed projects and false commitments by non-committed developers. For the first time, there was a legal power introduced for the common man to fight against the delayed possession and interest on delays on such possessions, or if nothing works, a full refund of his hard-earned money.

RERA benches in Telangana, Karnataka, and Haryana have given strong orders recently in favour of buyers. From directing refund with hefty double-digit interest rates, to penalties for not registering projects and referring suspicious cash-deals to Income Tax departments. This shows that authority can be very firm yet buyer-friendly. However, the very reality is not that simple.

So many buyers start celebrating ruling day with sheer joy when it is translated into judgments, only to realize that the more difficult part is yet to come-the implementation of orders. Enforcement delays, builders who are uncommitted and legal flaws imply that justice might take even months and years to convert from being a justice on paper to being a justice in hand.

This blog takes an in-depth view on a few recent compensation cases, the laws behind them and the great enforcement challenge that continues to test RERA.

Reality check on Rera’s promise

The introduction of RERA was a significant shift for homebuyers in India. For decades, buyers had little choice but to rely on developers who often made lofty promises and then failed to deliver. Legal disputes stretched on endlessly, while the real estate industry became famous for its opacity and lack of accountability.

RERA aimed of transforming the real estate landscape. The act prescribes: transparency, each project must be registered and details are made public; accountability, a developer is answerable for any delay in executing the timeline or fulfilling the commitments given to the buyer; and relief, the buyers have an option of going to an authority created for speedy redressal. These were radical concepts and, in many cases, homebuyers have been successful in getting refunds with interest for the delay and penalties on builders.

However, recent developments in different places, including Telangana, Karnataka, and Haryana, paint a different picture. Additionally, RERA has passed strong orders in favour of buyers, at times even going beyond mere compensation but enforcement of such orders becomes an issue, leaving buyers waiting for relief even after "winning” their case.

The law behind these orders

For those who are new to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, commonly referred to as RERA, it’s essential to know about the backbone of the law before getting into these recent cases. RERA was formulated to safeguard homebuyers in India and bring in transparency in the real estate industry. Several sections of this Act were used in the recent Telangana, Karnataka, Haryana judgments.

Under Section 3, no builder can advertise, market or sell any housing project without being registered under RERA. This is important because without registration, there is no guarantee that the project is legitimate, voted for by a committee and is monitored. Without it, purchasers can get hornswoggled into paying for schemes that never come to fruition.

The extended protection is carried a step further in section 4. It demands adherence to deadlines, construction specifications and legal clearances from developers who have to even submit detailed plans of the project to the authorities. This effectively means that the project, once approved, cannot change its delivery date or layout without the buyer’s consent.

Then there is the Section 18, a favourite of the homebuyer for good reason. Now, this clause says that if the developer does not give possession on time, the buyer can choose between asking for a full refund with interest or continuing with the project and getting their interest credited to the account each month of the delay. This paragraph tips the balance of power in favour of the buyer and makes it costly for builder to have made a mistake.

Finally, Section 63 gives RERA the authority to impose penalties on developers who refuse to follow its orders. While this is a strong tool on paper, its effectiveness depends heavily on enforcement.

These sections have been reinforced by important Supreme Court rulings, such as M/s Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP and Imperia Structures Ltd vs. Anil Patni. In these cases, the Court upheld buyer-friendly interpretations of RERA, confirming that builders cannot hide behind technicalities when they fail to deliver what they promised.

Telangana: coming down hard on unregistered projects

In May 2025, Telangana RERA dealt with a case involving an unregistered project that was being sold to buyers without the mandatory approvals. The project was only around 20% complete, despite years having passed since its launch. RERA found this to be a clear violation of Section 3 of the RERA Act, which makes it illegal to market or sell a project without registration. The developer was ordered to; Refund amounts paid by 62 buyers and add 11% annual interest on the refunded amount. This order was significant because it targeted both the delay and the fact that the project was never registered showing that the authority would not treat registration as a mere formality.

In another case, RERA fined the developer ₹14.9 lakh for failing to register ‘Aura Veli Mala Phase 1’. The builder was also ordered to, stop marketing and selling until registration was complete and refund the amounts to buyers with interest. The fine was imposed under Section 63, which allows penalties for non-compliance with RERA requirements. This kind of strict action sends a message that even marketing without registration has serious consequences. These Telangana cases highlight an important point that RERA is willing to step in even before possession delays become extreme, if there’s a fundamental violation like failing to register the project. It’s a preventive as well as corrective mechanism.

Karnataka: delay means interest, no exceptions

A Bengaluru homebuyer was promised possession within a fixed timeline. Three years after that date, the project was still incomplete. Karnataka RERA ordered the builder to pay ₹70 lakh, relying on Section 18 of the RERA Act, which entitles buyers to a refund with interest if the builder defaults. The authority also cited Supreme Court judgments like, M/s Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP which affirmed RERA’s jurisdiction and buyer rights and Imperia Structures Ltd vs. Anil Patni which upheld that buyers are entitled to compensation for delays.

In another case, a developer delayed possession by just one year but Karnataka RERA still ordered them to pay ₹7.12 lakh in interest to the buyer. This was important because it showed that even “short” delays are taken seriously and time commitments in the agreement are binding promises, not just casual estimates. Cases involving developers like Mantri Manyat Energia and Aashirwad Infra Developers also resulted in orders for refunds or possession with interest, showing that Karnataka RERA has been consistent in prioritising the buyer’s right to timely delivery. Karnataka RERA’s approach makes it clear that if you delay, you pay. By applying interest even on shorter delays, it keeps the pressure on developers to stick to their schedules.

Haryana: going beyond just possession delays

One of Haryana RERA’s most striking orders came in a Panipat case involving Real Heights Developers. The buyer, Jasvir Singh, had paid ₹10 lakh in cash which raised red flags about possible black money use. In this case Haryana RERA ordered the builder to refund the ₹10 lakh plus ₹7.73 lakh interest and referred the case to the Income Tax Department for investigation. This move showed RERA’s willingness to go beyond just possession issues and addressing financial irregularities in the sector. 

In the ‘Capital Gateway’ project in Gurugram, buyers had been waiting nearly a decade for possession. Haryana RERA ordered the builder to pay ongoing interest until the flats were delivered, giving buyers some financial relief during the extended wait. In another case, involving Pareena Infrastructures Pvt Ltd, the authority ruled that the builder could retain only 10% of the property cost as earnest money after a buyer defaulted on payments, and had to refund the rest. This showed RERA’s role in balancing fairness, protecting buyers from harsh contractual terms. Haryana RERA has been proactive not just in granting compensation but also in tackling issues like unfair forfeitures and unaccounted cash transactions, expanding the scope of buyer protection.

The enforcement problem

While the recent judgments in these states are strong, the reality is that an order in the buyer’s favour is often just the halfway mark. Winning on paper doesn’t always mean winning in real life. For many buyers, securing their money or even possession of their home is an entirely different and draining legal battle. Some common complaints are that builders disregard orders. And, even after some developers are ordered to pay refunds, interest, or penalties, they just refuse to do so. This compels the buyers to approach the civil courts in different execution petitions, taking several months even years in the process. Enforcement of RERA is another significant challenge. While RERA can make tough decisions and impose fines, its powers are limited since it cannot directly attach the builder’s property or seize assets like a civil court can. Buyers are at the mercy of the court to enforce the lien, as they have no direct power to recover when the builder does not make such payment.

The problem is made worse by case backlogs. In states like Karnataka and Haryana, thousands of complaints are still pending. This is aggravated by case backlogs as well. In Karnataka and Haryana, there are thousands of pending complaints. This implies that even after making an enforcement application, buyers may have to wait long in a queue for their case to be taken up. And naturally, the monetary burden on buyers in the interim is huge. Most are still servicing EMIs on home loans for houses they do not even occupy, and also renting their present dwelling. Some even have to endure the emotional burden of uncertain dwellings, delayed life planning.

Why it matters to Homebuyers

Delayed possession isn't only a legal issue; it's a personal crisis. Every RERA complaint is based on underlying family who is planning their life based on the promised completion date of their house. When that commitment is breeched, its impact flows through every aspect of their lives.

For instance, a newlywed pair who had bought a flat in 2017 hoping to take possession in 2020 might have delayed having children till they settled into their own home. Now, years later, they are still on rent, still waiting, and still making EMIs for a property they never got to see finished. Retired homebuyers who invested their life savings in a "dream retirement house" usually suffer the same disappointment, and financial uncertainty. This is why RERA's job is so important, it's not merely a matter of enforcing contracts, but safeguarding life plans and financial security of common folks. But without enforcement, the whole purpose of RERA is nullified.

[Image Sources: Alamy]

Strengthening RERA

Experts, attorneys and homebuyer’s associations all over India have been calling for enhanced enforcement powers of RERA. Practical solutions have been suggested. First, direct enforcement powers to RERA could be a game-changer. If RERA had the power to attach and auction a developer's assets directly to recover dues, buyers would not need to approach civil courts for execution. It would cut down on delays drastically.

Moreover, dedicated recovery officers in RERA would have proved helpful. Such officers would only be responsible for tracking the implementation of orders, follow-up with builders, and enforce timely payments and handing over possessions. Introducing automatic penalties on default should also prevent builders from ignoring orders. If each day of postponement after a judgment imposed a pre-specified penalty without the need for a new complaint, developers would have a strong economic incentive to settle speedily.

Last but not least, transparency instruments could also be magic. Picture a public online dashboard showing the compliance rate of each builder, detailing the number of orders they have obeyed and the number pending. Such exposure could put pressure on developers to behave, particularly in today's reputation economy.

The road forward

RERA has already changed the dynamics of how homebuyers can battle for their rights. Prior to 2016, there was no dedicated forum to address complaints of delayed possession, non-registered projects, or impromptu plan amendments. Now, buyers can directly approach RERA, make complaints online and get time-bound hearing. Yet, the journey ahead is to make RERA a forum for justice, as well as a mechanism for expeditious relief. The law has robust provisions and courts have interpreted in favour of the buyers but in the absence of the power to enforce its orders at speed, RERA becomes like another point on the long legal haul.

If the recommended reforms are implemented, RERA may finally fulfil its initial promise of fair play in real estate, timely possession, and real compensation if things go awry. That would be not just enacting good orders but ensuring that the orders translate into real homes, real payments, and real relief.

The recent cases in Telangana, Karnataka, and rightly from Haryana, have all proved that RERA can indeed turn out to be a true warrior of homebuyers. It has demanded heavy refunds, penalised unregistered projects, exposed black money transactions, and carried on with the ruling that any delay, no matter how little, has its consequences. But the hard part comes after the judgment. Too many buyers are left toasting a paper victory and waiting for the real relief to arrive. Justice delayed is justice denied, and in real estate, such things come at great expense not only monetarily but in levels of serenity, stability and dreams.

To be able to fully realize its potential as a fair and accountable regulatory regime, RERA must be able to enforce its orders. Orders need to be translated quickly into what people can do in the real world, without buyers being dragged through yet more stressful litigation. The idea behind RERA was straightforward: to safeguard the interest of the common homebuyer and provide clarity around real estate. Closing the gulf between victory in court and actual recovery will make this vision into a reality for thousands of individuals who have put their lives savings, hopes, and futures into their homes.

Author: - Radhika Patel, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

Statutory

1.     The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, No. 16 of 2016, §§ 3, 4, 18, 63, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).

2.     Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, notified separately by each State under § 84 of the 2016 Act.

Case Law

3.     Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (11.11.2021 - SC): MANU/SC/1056/2021

4.      Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni and Ors. (02.11.2020 - SC): MANU/SC/0811/2020

5.     M/s. M3M India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Dinesh Sharma, 2023 SCC Online SC 1049 (India).

Recent RERA Orders

6. Aura Velimala Phase 1, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Order No. 2024/XX (Feb. 2024), discussed in Telangana RERA Fines Builder ₹14.9 Lakh for Non-Registration, Orders Refund to 62 Flat Buyers, One India (Feb. 19, 2024), https://www.oneindia.com/hyderabad/telangana-rera-fines-builder-14-9-lakh-for-non-registration-orders-refund-to-62-flat-buyers-4166965.html.

7. SV Golden City 5, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Order No. 2024/YY (Feb. 2024), discussed in Register Plot or Refund Buyer for Project Delay: TGRERA to Builder, Times of India (Feb. 5, 2024), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/register-plot-or-refund-buyer-for-project-delay-tgrera-to-builder/articleshow/121170363.cms.

8. Happy Homes-1, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Order No. 2024/ZZ (Mar. 2024), discussed in Bhuvanteza Fined ₹6.45 Lakh by TG-RERA, Constro Facilitator (Mar. 12, 2024), https://constrofacilitator.com/bhuvanteza-fined-%E2%82%B96-45l-by-tg-rera/.

9. [Anonymous Buyer] v. [Bengaluru Developer], Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Order No. KRERA/2024/01 (Feb. 2024), discussed in Bengaluru Homebuyer to Get ₹70 Lakh from Builder Due to Three-Year Delay in Possession, The Economic Times (Feb. 24, 2024), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/real-estate/bengaluru-homebuyer-to-get-rs-70-lakh-from-builder-due-to-three-year-delay-in-possession-know-how-rera-law-helped-him-win-the-case/articleshow/122765765.cms.

11. [Complainant] v. Real Heights Developers Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Order No. HRERA/P/2024/01 (Mar. 2024), discussed in RERA Haryana Orders Realtor to Refund Cash Payment, Refers Case to I-T Dept., Times of India (Mar. 13, 2024), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/rera-haryana-orders-realtor-to-refund-cash-payment-refers-case-to-i-t-dept/articleshow/123260545.cms.