Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 07.08.2026
Jurisdiction of RERA Authority to Grant Refund/Interest and Scope of High Court’s Power to Waive Pre-Deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act- 2016
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in a batch of writ petitions involving major real estate developers and the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal questions involved, the court’s reasoning, and its implications for promoters, allottees, and the real estate sector at large.
Background of the Case
Multiple real estate companies, including Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Athena Infrastructure Ltd., Selene Constructions Ltd., M/s Vipul Limited, SS Group Private Limited, and M/s Assotech Moonshine, challenged orders passed by the Haryana RERA. The core issues revolved around:
- Jurisdiction of RERA to order refunds and interest to allottees under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).
- Whether the High Court can waive or relax the mandatory pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act for promoters appealing RERA orders.
Facts and Petitions
- The developers had allotted flats to buyers under various projects, with agreements specifying possession dates and compensation for delays.
- Due to delays in possession, buyers filed complaints before RERA, which ordered the developers to pay interest for the delay and, in some cases, refund amounts.
- Developers argued that RERA lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief and that the mandatory pre-deposit for appeals was onerous and caused financial hardship.
Legal Issues Examined
1. Jurisdiction of RERA Authority vs. Adjudicating Officer
- Developers’ Argument: Only the Adjudicating Officer (AO) could grant compensation and interest, not the RERA Authority.
- Court’s Analysis:
- The RERA Act distinguishes between ‘interest’ (for delayed possession/refund) and ‘compensation’ (for specific breaches or damages).
- The Supreme Court in M/s NewTech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP clarified that RERA Authority can order refunds and interest for delayed possession, while the AO exclusively decides compensation claims.
- The High Court affirmed that RERA Authority has jurisdiction to order refunds and interest, and such orders are within its statutory powers.
2. Waiver/Relaxation of Pre-Deposit for Appeals (Section 43(5))
- Developers’ Argument: The pre-deposit requirement (depositing the amount ordered by RERA before appeal) is harsh and should be waivable by the High Court.
- Court’s Analysis:
- The pre-deposit is a statutory mandate to protect allottees and ensure serious appeals.
- The Supreme Court has upheld such requirements as constitutional and not discriminatory, given the different obligations of promoters and allottees.
- The High Court retains constitutional powers under Article 226 to waive the pre-deposit in cases of extreme hardship, but the burden is on the petitioner to prove genuine inability with documentary evidence.
- In these cases, the developers failed to provide sufficient evidence of hardship or inability to pay; mere inconvenience or financial difficulty is not enough.
Key Findings and Directions
- RERA Authority’s Jurisdiction:
- RERA can order refunds and interest for delayed possession or non-delivery, but compensation claims must go to the Adjudicating Officer.
- Pre-Deposit Requirement:
- The statutory pre-deposit for appeals is valid and mandatory.
- High Courts can waive it only in proven cases of extreme hardship, not as a routine matter.
- Petitioners must provide clear financial evidence to support claims of hardship.
- Relief to Petitioners:
- The court granted an additional four weeks for the petitioners to make the pre-deposit, subject to a nominal payment to a welfare fund, to avoid further delays in appeals.
Implications for Real Estate Stakeholders
- For Promoters:
- Appeals against RERA orders require strict compliance with pre-deposit conditions.
- Jurisdictional challenges to RERA’s power to order refunds/interest are unlikely to succeed post this judgment and the Supreme Court’s clarification.
- Claims of financial hardship must be substantiated with concrete evidence.
- For Allottees:
- The judgment strengthens the enforceability of RERA orders for refunds and interest.
- Allottees can expect timely relief and reduced delays in execution of RERA orders.
- For Legal Practitioners:
- The distinction between ‘interest’ and ‘compensation’ under RERA is now judicially settled.
- The scope for challenging pre-deposit requirements is narrow and fact-specific.
Conclusion
This High Court judgment, in line with Supreme Court precedents, clarifies the powers of RERA Authorities and the appellate process under the RERA Act. It reinforces the statutory protections for homebuyers while balancing the rights of promoters, setting a clear precedent for future disputes in the real estate sector.
Connected Matter
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply