Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies RERA Jurisdiction: Non-Registration Does Not Defeat Homebuyers’ Remedies

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 09.09.2026

Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies RERA Jurisdiction: Non-Registration Does Not Defeat Homebuyers’ Remedies

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Parveen Gambhir and Others v. Union of India and Others, has delivered an important judgment examining the interface between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”), the Haryana real-estate regulatory framework, town-planning legislation and apartment-ownership law.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the impugned governmental directions and approval. The judgment is significant for three propositions: non-registration of a project under RERA does not by itself extinguish the remedies available to homebuyers; RERA authorities do not possess an independent statutory power to order demolition merely because construction deviates from sanctioned plans; and overlapping State and Central statutes can continue to operate in their respective fields unless there is a genuine inconsistency attracting Section 89 of RERA.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy concerned the group-housing project “Windchants”, situated in Sector 112, Gurugram. According to the petitioners, the project originally covered approximately 23.43 acres and was developed pursuant to licences obtained under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The petitioners had purchased flats after relying upon advertisements, marketing material and representations concerning the project.

The dispute subsequently developed around, among other things, the treatment of the project as different phases, the applicability of RERA to portions of the development, occupation certificates, alleged deviations from sanctioned plans and the construction of additional EWS dwelling units.

An additional 1.19 acres was subsequently purchased and a further licence was issued in September 2019. The petitioners alleged that the developer sought to avoid the consequences of RERA by treating portions of the development as separate phases even though occupation/completion certificates had not been obtained when the RERA regime became applicable.

The controversy also had an earlier consumer-law dimension. An allottee had challenged an additional demand arising from an alleged increase in sale area before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The NCDRC quashed that demand in August 2020, and the developer’s civil appeals were subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2021.

What Was Challenged Before the High Court?

The petitioners principally sought quashing of:

1. Directions dated 25 January 2021, issued by the State Government purportedly under Section 83 of RERA; and

2. An in-principle approval dated 4 March 2021 relating to the fourth Occupation Certificate.

They additionally sought directions for a fresh site inspection, compliance with sanctioned plans and quashing of amendments to the project alleged to be contrary to RERA. The judgment records that the petition was directed against the Section 83 directions as well as the in-principle approval.

The controversy therefore went considerably beyond an ordinary builder-buyer dispute. It required the High Court to determine the respective regulatory fields occupied by RERA, the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, and the applicable Haryana regulatory framework.

The Controversial Haryana Government Directions

One of the central challenges concerned the State Government’s directions of 25 January 2021.

• Those directions prescribed a procedure for proposed additions or alterations to sanctioned layout/building plans. Among other things, the mechanism contemplated inviting objections from existing allottees, publication of proposed revisions, availability of original and revised plans for inspection, consideration of objections and hearings before the competent authority.
• The directions also dealt with community and commercial facilities in licensed colonies. Importantly, they stated that, where the definition of “common areas” under RERA conflicted with the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, the definition under the State legislation would govern and contradictory provisions under RERA would be treated as redundant.

This became one of the principal constitutional and statutory issues before the Court.

Petitioners’ Case: RERA Must Prevail

• The petitioners argued that the State Government had effectively accorded primacy to Haryana legislation over the Central RERA framework and thereby diluted the safeguards available under Section 14(2) of RERA.
• They further argued that Section 83 merely empowers the appropriate Government to issue policy directions to the RERA Authority and cannot be employed to supplant the statutory authority or assume functions specifically entrusted to it.

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) v. State of West Bengal, (2021) 8 SCC 599, and on Sections 88 and 89 of RERA, read with Article 254 of the Constitution.

Section 89 provides RERA with overriding effect where another law contains provisions inconsistent with it. The petitioners consequently argued that Haryana legislation could not be given precedence over the Parliamentary enactment.

Section 14 RERA: Promoters Must Adhere to Sanctioned Plans

The Court closely examined Section 14 of RERA.

Section 14 requires a promoter to develop and complete a project in accordance with sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications approved by the competent authority.

For material alterations to sanctioned plans, layout plans or common areas, Section 14(2) requires the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, excluding the promoter.

The statutory protection is important because “minor additions or alterations” do not extend to significant structural modifications. The provision excludes matters such as additions to area, changes in height, removal of part of a building and specified structural changes from the concept of minor alterations.

The High Court accordingly recognised a peremptory statutory requirement that promoters adhere to sanctioned plans, subject only to the limited alterations contemplated by Section 14.

This is an important protection for allottees: promoters cannot treat sanctioned plans as merely indicative documents capable of unilateral alteration.

Major Finding No. 1: Non-Registration of a Project Does Not Take Away a Homebuyer’s RERA Remedy

• One of the most consequential portions of the judgment concerns the relationship between Section 3 and Section 31 of RERA.
• Section 3 imposes the registration obligation upon promoters. Broadly, a promoter cannot advertise, market, book, sell or offer a real-estate project for sale without registration, subject to statutory exceptions. Ongoing projects for which completion certificates had not been issued were also brought within the registration mechanism.
• But what happens if the promoter itself fails to register the project?
• Can the promoter rely upon its own failure to argue that RERA has no jurisdiction over a homebuyer’s complaint?
• The High Court’s answer is important: No.
• Relying upon its earlier decision in Ramprastha Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that the effect of non-registration under Section 3 would not be to bar homebuyers/allottees from invoking the remedy contemplated under Section 31 of RERA.
• Section 31 grants an aggrieved person a statutory right to complain to the Authority or adjudicating officer regarding violations of RERA or the rules and regulations framed under it. The Court emphasised that adjudicatory competence is rooted more directly in this statutory remedy than in the promoter’s compliance—or non-compliance—with Section 3.

Why this finding matters

• This interpretation prevents an anomalous result.
• If non-registration deprived RERA of jurisdiction, a promoter could potentially benefit from its own statutory default: the very failure for which RERA provides penalties could become a defence against proceedings initiated by an allottee.
• The Court’s interpretation avoids that consequence.
• Indeed, the judgment notes that Section 59 separately provides consequences for non-registration, including monetary penalties and further consequences for continuing violations.

Thus:

Failure to register is a statutory breach by the promoter; it is not ordinarily a jurisdictional shield against an aggrieved homebuyer.

Major Finding No. 2: RERA Has Broad Adjudicatory and Direction-Giving Powers

• The judgment also refers to Section 37 of RERA.
• Section 37 empowers the Authority, for discharging its statutory functions, to issue directions from time to time to promoters, allottees and real-estate agents, and such directions are binding upon those concerned.
• Read together with Section 31, this reinforces the regulatory reach of RERA over complaints concerning statutory violations.
• The Court therefore treated the homebuyer’s remedial rights and the Authority’s adjudicatory competence as distinct from the question whether the promoter had properly fulfilled the project-registration obligation.

Major Finding No. 3: RERA Authorities Cannot Themselves Order Demolition Under Section 14

• This is perhaps the most practically important limitation identified in the judgment.
• While Section 14 imposes a clear obligation upon promoters to adhere to sanctioned plans, the High Court held that the provision does not itself confer a power upon RERA authorities to order demolition of constructions that deviate from those plans.
• The Court observed that even where gross deviations or excess construction are alleged, there must be a statutory source of authority empowering the particular regulator to order demolition. It found no such demolition power vested in the RERA authorities merely through Section 14.

This distinction is critical:

RERA can regulate the promoter’s obligations and adjudicate violations, but every remedial power cannot automatically be inferred merely from the existence of the underlying statutory obligation.

Who, Then, Can Order Demolition?

The High Court explained that the power to demolish construction deviating from sanctioned plans may lie with the Municipal Corporation, Town and Country Planning Department or another authority under the applicable functional statute, depending upon the location and statutory framework governing the construction.

The competent authority must therefore be identified by examining the statute governing planning, construction and municipal control over the particular property.

This creates an important jurisdictional distinction for litigants.

A homebuyer may have a valid grievance under RERA concerning deviations from sanctioned plans, but the specific relief of physical demolition may need to be pursued before the authority statutorily empowered to order demolition.

Major Finding No. 4: Sections 88 and 89 Must Be Read Together

• Another important aspect of the decision is the Court’s interpretation of Sections 88 and 89 of RERA.
• Section 88 provides that RERA operates in addition to and not in derogation of other laws.
• Section 89 gives RERA overriding effect where there is an inconsistency with another law.
• The Court therefore rejected an approach under which RERA would automatically displace every other statute touching upon real estate.
• According to the judgment, overriding effect arises where there is an actual inconsistency. If another enactment operates in a separate regulatory field, both statutory regimes can coexist.
• This is an application of the principle of harmonious statutory construction: the first task is to determine whether the statutes can operate together before resorting to the overriding provision.

RERA and Consumer Protection Remedies

• The Court also addressed the relationship between RERA and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• It observed that Section 88 permits homebuyers to access remedies under RERA as well as under consumer law because the statutory frameworks can operate complementarily.
• The judgment, however, states that the remedies are to be exercised before one or the other forum and not simultaneously before both. That proposition should be read in the specific context of the Court’s reasoning and the nature of the relief pursued.
• The broader significance remains that RERA was not interpreted as automatically extinguishing other statutory remedies available to purchasers of real estate.

Major Finding No. 5: Different Statutes Occupy Different Regulatory Fields

• The High Court ultimately concluded that the relevant legislative regimes did not necessarily suffer from repugnancy merely because they all touched upon aspects of real-estate development.
• The Court identified different statutory fields: licensing and consequences of licensing breaches, regulation of land use and urban development, apartment ownership and transferability, and the separate protections and regulatory mechanisms created by RERA.
• Accordingly, the Court reasoned that each legislation should be enforced within the field that it occupies, without one authority encroaching upon powers specifically vested in another.
• This distinction explains why the Court simultaneously recognised strong RERA protections for homebuyers while declining to treat RERA authorities as universal authorities for every planning, licensing, demolition and ownership dispute arising from a real-estate project.

Occupation Certificates: Separate Statutory Remedy

The petitioners had also challenged matters relating to occupation certificates.

The Court held that if the petitioners were aggrieved by orders granting occupation certificates to the builder, they could pursue an appeal before the competent authority.

This again illustrates the jurisdictional approach adopted by the Court: the existence of RERA does not absorb every function of town-planning, licensing and building-control authorities.

Final Decision

• Ultimately, the Division Bench found no merit in the writ petition.
• The petition was dismissed, and the impugned annexures were maintained and affirmed.
• Thus, despite the Court’s important exposition of homebuyer remedies, Section 14 compliance, non-registration and the limits of RERA’s demolition jurisdiction, the petitioners did not succeed in obtaining the quashing relief sought.

Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment

Issue	Punjab & Haryana High Court’s finding
Non-registration under Section 3	Does not by itself deprive an aggrieved homebuyer/allottee of the remedy under Section 31.
Promoter’s duty under Section 14	Sanctioned plans must be followed; material changes are subject to statutory consent requirements.
Two-thirds consent	Section 14(2) requires previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees for specified alterations/additions.
Power of RERA to order demolition	Section 14 does not itself confer demolition powers upon RERA authorities.
Unauthorised/deviating construction	Demolition may fall within the jurisdiction of municipal, town-planning or another statutorily empowered authority.
Sections 88 & 89	Must be harmoniously read; RERA overrides another law where there is actual inconsistency.
State laws and RERA	Can coexist where they occupy distinct regulatory fields.
Occupation Certificate challenge	Appropriate statutory appellate remedy before the competent authority remains available.
Final outcome	Writ petition dismissed; impugned annexures maintained and affirmed.

Practical Impact on Homebuyers

The judgment is particularly significant because it prevents the statutory registration requirement from being turned against homebuyers.

A developer’s alleged failure to register a project cannot automatically be used to say:

“Because the project was never registered, RERA has no jurisdiction over the buyer’s grievance.”

The Court’s approach treats registration principally as a regulatory obligation imposed upon the promoter, while Section 31 provides the aggrieved person with the statutory route for complaining about violations.

At the same time, homebuyers must carefully identify the correct forum for the particular relief they seek. A claim for compensation, enforcement of RERA obligations or other statutory relief may properly fall within the RERA framework, whereas actual demolition of construction contrary to sanctioned plans may require proceedings before the competent municipal or town-planning authority.

Practical Impact on Developers and Promoters

The judgment should not be understood as diluting the obligation to register projects.

On the contrary, non-registration remains independently punishable under the RERA framework. More importantly, the judgment indicates that a promoter cannot necessarily rely on its own non-registration to defeat an allottee’s statutory remedy.

Developers must therefore separately ensure compliance with:

RERA registration requirements; sanctioned plans and Section 14; consent requirements for alterations; planning and licensing legislation; occupation/completion certificate requirements; and obligations imposed by municipal and town-planning authorities.

Compliance with one regulatory regime cannot automatically cure non-compliance with another where each statute occupies a separate field.

Significance of the Judgment for RERA Jurisprudence

Parveen Gambhir is significant not because it gives unlimited jurisdiction to RERA, but because it attempts to draw the boundaries of RERA jurisdiction.

The judgment essentially establishes a two-way principle.

On one side, the protective jurisdiction of RERA cannot easily be defeated by a promoter’s failure to register a project. On the other, RERA cannot be treated as an all-purpose planning and municipal authority merely because the dispute concerns a real-estate project.

That distinction is important for future litigation involving unregistered projects, deviations from sanctioned plans, occupation certificates, project alterations, common areas, planning permissions and overlapping regulatory statutes.

Conclusion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Parveen Gambhir & Others v. Union of India & Others reinforces an important feature of India’s real-estate regulatory framework: RERA is a protective and remedial statute, but its authorities must operate within the powers actually conferred by Parliament.

The judgment recognises that non-registration of a project does not automatically deprive homebuyers of their remedy under Section 31. At the same time, it distinguishes between RERA’s power to regulate and adjudicate promoter obligations and the statutory power to physically demolish unauthorised construction, which may vest in municipal or town-planning authorities.

Connected Matter

Failure to Register Project Under Section 3 Does Not Oust RERA’s Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Under Section 31

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

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com