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

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

Date: 10.09.2026

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

In an important ruling concerning the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the rights of homebuyers, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a promoter cannot defeat an allottee’s remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 merely by contending that the concerned project was not registered with RERA.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri rejected the jurisdictional challenge raised by M/s Ramprastha Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others against an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram. The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioners could pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under the RERA Act.

Background of the Dispute

• The writ petition challenged an order dated 26 July 2024 passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram on complaints instituted by Yuvraj Arora and Vivek Arora.
• An important document before the Court was a receipt issued by Ramprastha Developers recording payment of ₹2,49,37,500 in connection with a request for tentative registration of 6,500 square yards in its future potential projects.
• The developers principally argued that RERA lacked jurisdiction because the subject project had not been registered under Section 3 of the RERA Act. According to them, registration of the project was a mandatory prerequisite before the provisions of the RERA Act could apply.

Developers Challenge RERA’s Jurisdiction

• The petitioners contended that the RERA order suffered from an inherent jurisdictional defect and was effectively coram non judice.
• Their argument was that no requisite registration/licence existed in respect of the project and, therefore, RERA could not entertain the complaints. They also questioned whether a payment relating to a prospective or future project could confer enforceable rights upon the complainants under the RERA Act.
• The respondents, on the other hand, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition because Section 43(5) of the RERA Act provides a statutory appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Authority or adjudicating officer.

High Court Examines Section 3 of the RERA Act

• The Court considered Section 3, which generally prohibits a promoter from advertising, marketing, booking, selling or offering property in a real estate project without registration with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
• The High Court, however, rejected the proposition that the promoter’s failure to secure the relevant registration could itself extinguish the rights of homebuyers to approach RERA.
• The Court observed that non-issuance or absence of the relevant registration does not restrict the right of homebuyers to access remedies contemplated under the RERA Act.
• This distinction became central to the judgment: the promoter’s statutory obligation to register a project cannot be converted into a jurisdictional defence against an aggrieved allottee.

Section 31 Is the Source of RERA’s Adjudicatory Jurisdiction

• The High Court placed considerable emphasis on Section 31 of the RERA Act.
• Section 31 permits any aggrieved person to file a complaint before the Authority or adjudicating officer for violation or contravention of the Act, rules or regulations against a promoter, allottee or real estate agent.
• The Court held that the question of RERA’s adjudicatory jurisdiction is more directly governed by this statutory right to file a complaint than by whether every requirement relating to project registration under Section 3 had first been fulfilled.
• The Court consequently reasoned that compliance with Section 3, or even action by the competent authority under the provisos to Section 3, is not a statutory precursor to the vesting of adjudicatory jurisdiction in RERA.

Promoter Cannot Benefit From Non-Registration

• The judgment has an important consumer-protection consequence.
• If non-registration of a project were treated as sufficient to oust RERA jurisdiction, a promoter could potentially rely upon its own failure to comply with registration requirements to prevent an aggrieved purchaser or allottee from approaching the regulatory authority.
• The High Court’s interpretation avoids such a result.
• The Court read the provisions of the RERA Act harmoniously and concluded that the statutory framework confers adjudicatory competence upon RERA to entertain complaints concerning alleged violations by promoters.
• It therefore held that neither the filing of the complaints nor RERA’s exercise of jurisdiction suffered from an inherent jurisdictional defect or the vice of coram non judice.

RERA’s Powers Under Section 37

• The Court also referred to Section 37 of the RERA Act, which authorises the Regulatory Authority to issue directions to promoters, allottees and real estate agents for the purpose of discharging its functions under the Act, Rules and Regulations.
• The provision states that such directions are binding on all concerned.
• This reinforced the Court’s conclusion regarding the breadth of RERA’s regulatory and adjudicatory authority.

Prospective Allottee Can Also Have Locus to Approach RERA

• Another significant issue concerned the complainants’ status as allottees.
• The developers argued that the complainant had merely paid money in respect of prospective projects and that no such project had actually been floated at the relevant stage. On this basis, they questioned whether any cause of action or locus standi existed.
• The High Court rejected this contention.
• It reasoned that the statutory concept of an allottee could encompass potential or prospective allottees in relation to projects proposed to be undertaken in the future, and considered the receipt/documentary arrangement sufficient in the circumstances to reject the challenge to the complainants’ locus.
• This aspect of the judgment may have particular significance in cases involving advance bookings, pre-launch payments, tentative registrations and payments made for future projects.

Alternative Remedy Under Section 43(5)

• Having concluded that RERA had not exercised jurisdiction that was inherently non-existent, the High Court addressed the developers’ attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction directly.
• The Court found no merit in the argument that the statutory appellate remedy was ineffective merely because the petitioners alleged that RERA’s original order was without jurisdiction.
• Since the jurisdiction assumed by RERA was neither non-est nor coram non judice, the developers were required to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order.
• Section 43(5) is particularly significant for promoters because an appeal by a promoter is subject to the statutory pre-deposit requirement prescribed by the proviso to that provision.

Relief Regarding Limitation for Statutory Appeal

• While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court provided an important procedural safeguard.
• It observed that if the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners was time-barred, they could file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• The appellate body was directed to pass a reasoned decision on such application and thereafter, where appropriate, register and decide the appeal after hearing all affected parties.

Key Principles Emerging From the Judgment

The judgment establishes several important propositions for RERA disputes:

• First, non-registration of a real estate project does not, by itself, deprive an aggrieved homebuyer or allottee of the statutory remedy available under RERA.
• Second, the promoter’s obligation to register a project under Section 3 must be distinguished from RERA’s adjudicatory jurisdiction under Section 31.
• Third, failure to comply with project-registration requirements cannot automatically be used by the promoter to defeat a complaint brought by an aggrieved person.
• Fourth, RERA enjoys statutory powers under Section 37 to issue binding directions to promoters, allottees and real estate agents.
• Fifth, the Court recognised, in the factual setting before it, the standing of a person who had paid substantial consideration towards a prospective project to pursue remedies under the Act.
• Sixth, where RERA possesses jurisdiction, a promoter challenging its order should ordinarily pursue the statutory appeal under Section 43(5) instead of bypassing that remedy through a writ petition.

Significance for Homebuyers and Developers

• The ruling strengthens the remedial character of the RERA framework.
• For homebuyers, it indicates that a developer’s failure to complete statutory registration formalities does not necessarily leave purchasers without a remedy under RERA. This is especially relevant to disputes involving pre-launch bookings, tentative allotments, advance payments and projects whose regulatory status is disputed.
• For developers, the judgment highlights that non-registration cannot safely be treated as a jurisdictional shield. The obligation to register and the jurisdiction of RERA to address grievances operate within the broader statutory framework and must be interpreted harmoniously.

Conclusion

In M/s Ramprastha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected the developers’ contention that absence of RERA registration deprived the Authority of jurisdiction over the homebuyers’ complaints.

The Court held that the statutory right of an aggrieved person to approach RERA under Section 31 is central to the Authority’s adjudicatory competence, while non-compliance with Section 3 does not automatically extinguish that remedy. Finding no inherent jurisdictional defect in the proceedings before Haryana RERA, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the developers to pursue their statutory appellate remedy. It also permitted them to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act if limitation became an issue before the appellate forum.

Connected Matter

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

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