Allahabad HC: RERA Application Pending Beyond 30 Days Results in Deemed Registration; UPRERA Cannot Insist on Landowner as Co-Promoter

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

Date: 11.09.2026

Allahabad HC: RERA Application Pending Beyond 30 Days Results in Deemed Registration; UPRERA Cannot Insist on Landowner as Co-Promoter

In a significant ruling concerning the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Allahabad High Court has held that where the Real Estate Regulatory Authority neither grants nor rejects a complete project-registration application within the statutory period of 30 days, the project becomes deemed to be registered under Section 5(2) of the RERA Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) against the State of Uttar Pradesh and U.P. RERA.

Dispute Over Registration of L&T’s “Green Reserve” Project

• The dispute concerned L&T’s proposed “Green Reserve” residential project comprising four towers in Jaypee Greens Wish Town, Noida. L&T had acquired development rights pursuant to an Assignment Agreement dated 31 July 2017 executed with Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL)/Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL). The judgment records that ₹487.5 crore was paid in connection with the Assignment Agreement.
• L&T applied to UPRERA for registration of Towers 1 and 2 and subsequently Towers 3 and 4. UPRERA, however, repeatedly required L&T to include JIL as a “promoter”, principally because the project land and sanctioned map were not in L&T’s ownership.
• L&T maintained that the development, construction, marketing and sale rights had been assigned to it and that JIL was not required to be made a co-promoter.

Landowner Need Not Necessarily Be a “Promoter”

• One of the most important questions before the High Court was whether the landowner must necessarily be joined as a co-promoter for registration under RERA.
• The Court examined the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk) and held that a person who does not own the land but constructs/develops the project for sale can independently fall within the statutory definition of promoter.
• The Court observed that the person who constructs and sells can be the promoter even when construction is undertaken on land belonging to another person, provided there is a valid arrangement between the owner and developer. It consequently held that JIL did not fall within the category of promoter for this particular project.
• Accordingly, UPRERA’s insistence that JIL/JAL must sign the registration application as co-promoter was held to be unsupported by the Act.

UPRERA Cannot Demand Documents Beyond Section 4(2)

• The High Court also found that L&T’s application was complete and accompanied by the documents contemplated under Section 4(2) of the RERA Act.
• The Court held that once an application is in the prescribed format and contains the documents statutorily required, UPRERA cannot engage in a “hair-splitting exercise” by repeatedly demanding additional documents not contemplated under Section 4(2).
• The Court therefore found no justification for UPRERA to keep L&T’s application pending beyond the statutory period.

Section 5(2): 30-Day Period Has a Statutory Consequence

• The central issue in the judgment concerned the interpretation of Section 5 of the RERA Act.
• Under Section 5(1), the Authority is required, within 30 days of receiving an application, either to grant registration or reject the application for reasons recorded in writing. Section 5(2) expressly provides that if the Authority fails to do either, the project “shall be deemed to have been registered.”
• The Court emphasised that where legislation prescribes not only a time period for performance of a statutory duty but also expressly specifies the consequence of failure to act within that period, the statutory consequence must be given effect.
• In L&T’s case, the applications remained pending despite the company having answered the objections and furnished the relevant documentation.

Project Deemed Registered After Expiry of 30 Days

• The High Court consequently held that UPRERA had only two options: either grant registration within 30 days or reject the application within that period.
• Keeping the application pending was not a third option available to the Authority.
• The Division Bench categorically concluded that once the statutory 30-day period expired without rejection, L&T’s application became deemed registered under Section 5(2). UPRERA was thereafter required to provide the registration number, Login ID and password to the developer.

UPRERA Cannot Subsequently Reject a Deemed Registration

• The Court went a step further and held that once deemed registration had taken effect, UPRERA no longer had jurisdiction to subsequently reject the original registration application.
• According to the Court, once a project stands registered by operation of the deeming provision, any subsequent action against such registration would have to be taken in accordance with the mechanism contemplated under Section 7 of the RERA Act, rather than by belatedly rejecting the original application.
• This is an important interpretation because it gives substantive effect to the statutory deeming fiction under Section 5(2).

High Court Sets Aside UPRERA’s Rejection

• The High Court ultimately ruled substantially in favour of Larsen & Toubro.
• It held that the objection requiring JIL to be included as co-promoter was “baseless and incorrect”, that L&T’s project-registration application acquired deemed-registration status after expiry of the mandatory period, and that UPRERA could not thereafter reject the application in the manner adopted by it.
• The Court accordingly set aside UPRERA’s decision rejecting L&T’s applications.

Key Takeaway

The judgment establishes two significant principles under RERA. First, ownership of the project land is not by itself determinative of who must be treated as a promoter; a developer with valid development rights who constructs and sells the project may independently qualify as promoter under Section 2(zk).

Second, and more importantly, Section 5(2) creates a genuine statutory deeming fiction. RERA authorities cannot indefinitely keep a complete registration application pending. If the Authority neither grants nor rejects it within the prescribed 30 days, the consequence stipulated by Parliament follows—the project is deemed registered.

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: Allahabad High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com