Rajasthan HC: Integrated Real Estate Project Cannot Be Split to Claim RERA Registration Exemption

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

Date: 30.09.2026

Rajasthan HC: Integrated Real Estate Project Cannot Be Split to Claim RERA Registration Exemption

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Harish Jasuja challenging directions requiring registration of the commercial real estate project “City Trade Centre” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Justice Sudesh Bansal upheld the findings of the Rajasthan RERA Authority and the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that the City Trade Centre was developed and marketed as one single project, spread over more than 500 square metres and comprising 38 commercial units.

The High Court rejected the appellant’s attempt to claim exemption on the basis that the land individually owned by him measured only 336.12 sq. metres. It held that the project had to be viewed in its entirety rather than by isolating the appellant’s individual portion.

The Court also rejected the argument that the project was exempt as a pre-RERA project, finding that the appellant failed to establish the factual requirements for exemption under Rule 4(ii) of the Rajasthan RERA Rules, 2017.

Background: RERA Directed Registration of ‘City Trade Centre’

• The controversy arose from the City Trade Centre project at Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
• By an order dated 9 May 2022, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed registration of the City Trade Centre under Section 3 of the RERA Act within 30 days.
• That direction was subsequently affirmed by the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal through its order dated 12 May 2026.
• Harish Jasuja then approached the Rajasthan High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act, challenging both orders.
• Because similar factual and legal questions arose in several connected matters involving the same appellant, the High Court heard the batch together and disposed of all the appeals through a common order.

Appellant Claimed His Individual Land Was Below 500 Sq. Metres

• One of the principal arguments advanced by Harish Jasuja was that he individually owned only 336.12 sq. metres out of the total City Trade Centre development area of approximately 643.82 sq. metres.
• On that basis, he invoked the exemption under Section 3(2)(a) of the RERA Act, contending that registration was not mandatory because his own landholding was below the statutory 500-square-metre threshold.
• The High Court, however, found that this approach could not be accepted in light of the factual findings concerning the project as a whole.

City Trade Centre Was Developed and Marketed as One Project

• The respondents argued that City Trade Centre was not a collection of independent developments capable of being separated according to individual ownership.
• Rather, the project had been marketed for sale or lease by M/s MNG Dreams, a partnership firm in which Harish Jasuja and Rajender Wadhwa were partners.
• The RERA Appellate Tribunal had specifically found that the development was “designed, constructed and marketed as one single project” and was therefore required to be registered under Section 3.
• The High Court attached significance to this factual determination.
• It recorded that City Trade Centre was marketed by M/s MNG Dreams along with M/s Jasuja Builders and M/s Anami Buildmart as a single project spread over a total land area exceeding 500 square metres, comprising more than eight units and having common amenities.

38 Commercial Units and More Than 500 Sq. Metres: No Section 3(2)(a) Exemption

The High Court considered both the object of compulsory project registration under Section 3 and the factual findings already recorded by the Tribunal.

It noted that the development:

• constituted one single project;
• had been developed and marketed through a partnership firm;
• extended over more than 500 sq. metres; and
• contained 38 commercial units, clearly exceeding eight units.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the direction requiring registration under RERA could not be regarded as arbitrary or contrary to the exemption contained in Section 3(2)(a).

The ruling therefore underscores that where a development is factually established to be one integrated project, a promoter cannot necessarily rely upon the smaller size of an individually owned portion to claim exemption from RERA registration.

Argument That Project Pre-Dated RERA Also Rejected

• Harish Jasuja advanced an alternative argument.
• He contended that the City Trade Centre project had commenced in 2013, before RERA became operational in Rajasthan from 1 May 2017, and therefore claimed exemption under Rule 4(ii) of the Rajasthan RERA Rules, 2017.
• The respondents countered that the project continued to be an ongoing project.
• According to the factual findings affirmed by the Tribunal, out of the 38 units, the required 60% of units had not been sold or leased before 1 May 2017.
• The High Court agreed with the authorities below.
• It found that the appellant had failed to establish that 60% of the 38 commercial units available for sale or lease had actually been booked, leased or sold before RERA came into force.
• Accordingly, the Court held that no exemption under Rule 4(ii) could be granted.

2015 Sale of Third Floor Did Not Establish Exemption

• The appellant also sought to rely upon the sale of the project’s third floor to Rajender Wadhwa in 2015.
• He argued that this transaction took place before the RERA Act and Rules came into operation and therefore should not have been treated adversely while determining whether the project qualified for exemption.
• The High Court was not persuaded.
• It noted that the RERA Authority and Tribunal had considered the available lease and sale deeds and concluded that the statutory percentage of the entire project’s units had not been sold or leased before 1 May 2017.

Challenge Based on RERA Office Order Dated 8 March 2022

• Another argument concerned an office order dated 8 March 2022 issued by the Rajasthan RERA Authority.
• The appellant contended that the office order had no binding legal effect because it had not been issued by the “appropriate government” within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the RERA Act.
• According to him, both RERA and the Appellate Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error by relying upon this office order to direct registration.
• The High Court declined to enter into the validity or binding nature of that office order.
• Why? Because the Court found that the direction to register City Trade Centre was not founded upon the office order.

Instead, registration followed independently from the conclusion that the project did not qualify for exemption under Section 3(2)(a).

The Court therefore held that there was no need in these appeals to examine the legality or binding effect of the 8 March 2022 office order.

Madras High Court’s Devinarayan Housing Decision Distinguished

• The appellant relied upon the Madras High Court judgment in M/s Devinarayan Housing and Property v. Manu Karan, MANU/TN/5437/2023, decided on 20 September 2023, which, according to the appellant, had subsequently been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
• The Rajasthan High Court acknowledged the principle stated in Devinarayan Housing concerning the word “or” in Section 3(2)(a).
• The Madras High Court had treated “or” as disjunctive rather than conjunctive.
• However, the Rajasthan High Court held that the precedent did not assist Harish Jasuja on the facts of the present case because the Tribunal had found that both relevant conditions stood fulfilled.
• Thus, the Court did not reject the legal interpretation advanced through Devinarayan Housing; rather, it found the factual circumstances of City Trade Centre outside the exemption.

Section 12 Argument Also Rejected

• The appellant additionally referred to Section 12 of the RERA Act, arguing that he did not fall within the conditions contemplated by that provision.
• The High Court rejected this contention in view of the factual findings already recorded by the RERA Tribunal and the explanation to Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act.

Section 58 RERA Appeals Require a Substantial Question of Law

• An important procedural aspect of the judgment concerns the limited scope of an appeal to the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act.
• The Court noted at the outset that Section 58 permits such appeals within the grounds contemplated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Accordingly, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for entertaining a RERA appeal before the High Court.
• This became decisive because the appellant’s challenge largely sought to revisit factual findings already recorded by RERA and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.
• The High Court found no substantial question of law requiring consideration.

Final Decision: All Appeals Dismissed

• The Rajasthan High Court ultimately held that the batch of appeals was bereft of merit and was not liable to be entertained or admitted within the scope of Section 58 of the RERA Act.
• Accordingly, all the appeals were dismissed.
• The interim stay order dated 3 July 2026 was vacated, and all pending stay or other applications were disposed of.
• The result is that the direction requiring registration of the City Trade Centre project under RERA remains undisturbed.

Who Won?

• The respondents/complainants and the Rajasthan RERA authorities prevailed.
• Harish Jasuja’s challenge to the registration requirement failed before the Rajasthan High Court. The earlier RERA direction dated 9 May 2022 and the Appellate Tribunal’s decision dated 12 May 2026 were therefore left undisturbed.

Why This Judgment Matters for Developers and Promoters

• The judgment carries practical significance for promoters attempting to determine whether a project falls within the registration exemption under Section 3(2)(a).
• The Court’s approach indicates that the actual character of the development as a project is critical. Where different portions are developed and marketed collectively as one project with common amenities, the registration threshold cannot necessarily be tested by looking only at one promoter’s individual landholding.
• The decision is equally significant for older developments. Merely establishing that construction began before RERA came into force may not, by itself, secure exemption. The factual requirements prescribed for an ongoing project’s exemption must also be established from the available sale, lease and project records.
• Finally, developers challenging concurrent factual findings of RERA and the Appellate Tribunal must account for the restricted appellate jurisdiction under Section 58: a High Court appeal requires a substantial question of law, rather than merely a disagreement with factual conclusions.

Key Takeaway

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld mandatory RERA registration of City Trade Centre, finding that the development was a single project extending beyond the statutory threshold and comprising 38 commercial units.

The appellant could not secure exemption by isolating his individual 336.12 sq. metre landholding from the integrated project, nor could he establish the requirements for exemption as a pre-RERA/ongoing project under Rule 4(ii). With no substantial question of law arising under Section 58, the High Court dismissed all eight connected appeals and vacated the interim stay.

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: Rajasthan High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com