Between Statute and Shortcut: How Courts are Reining in RERA’s Expanding Jurisdiction

The need for a robust and transparent regulatory framework in the real estate sector had been long felt in India. For decades, homebuyers were at the mercy of unregulated developers, with no centralised authority to ensure timely delivery, quality assurance or refund mechanisms. The enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016¹ (hereinafter, “the RERA Act”) marked a historic shift in this landscape. For the first time, developers are brought under a strict disclosure regime, consumer interests are legally protected and real estate projects are subject to timelines, penalties and binding adjudication. The RERA Act is envisioned not only as grievance redressal platform, but as a structural overhaul of the industry. While the implementation continues to evolve across States, the RERA Act remains one of the most ambitious real estate reforms in India’s legal history. The RERA Act mandates each State to establish a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) consisting of a Chairperson and not less than two full-time members, appointed by the State in accordance with Section 20² of the RERA Act. The Chairperson³ presides over the authority and ensures its efficient functioning, while the members⁴, who are experts in urban development, law, real estate, finance or public administration collectively contribute to adjudication, regulatory oversight, and policy framing. The authority exercises quasi-judicial powers in resolving disputes which arise under Section 31⁵, and its composition is strictly governed by Sections 21 to 236⁶ of the RERA Act. Under the Act, an Adjudicating Officer⁷ is appointed under Section 71⁸ for the limited purpose of determining compensation payable to allottees for violations under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19. As defined in the Act, an Adjudicating Officer must be a judicial officer of the rank of a District Judge, ensuring legal expertise in handling such claims. Unlike the authority or tribunal, the Adjudicating Officer does not have jurisdiction to impose penalties or interest, nor to execute orders passed by the RERA bodies. As such, the Adjudicating Officers’ role is narrowly defined and deliberately insulated from broader regulatory enforcement functions, which ensures that adjudication remains independent and competent and avoid decision-making that may dilute the procedural fairness or invite legal challenge. Any alteration in the structure or the functioning of the authority requires a proper legislative framework.

Off late, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 24-4-2025 invalidated a government notification of the Government of Haryana that sought to shift the balance of power under the RERA Act, underscoring the significance of adhering to statutory design in delegated governance. The Government of Haryana vide Notification No. 50/15/2024-5S(1)⁹ dated 11-5-2024 authorised the Adjudication Officers under the RERA Act with the authority of a Collector under the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887¹⁰. The Division Bench comprising Sureshwar Thakur and H.S. Grewal, JJ. of the High Court in Vatika Ltd. v. Union of India¹¹, held this delegation ultra vires in a thorough and well-reasoned ruling, deducting that when such powers have been against the legislative intent, they could not be granted administratively. This Notification was challenged by the petitioner, Vatika Ltd. on the grounds that it gave quasi-judicial officers coercive revenue recovery powers, even though their statutory mandate under Section 71 of the RERA Act was strictly limited to deciding compensation claims. Under the impugned notification, Adjudicating Officers would also begin executing orders passed by the RERA and Appellate Tribunal¹², specifically which included imposing penalties and interest. This disrupts the balance of powers which are carefully added in the Act. The question which posed in front of the Court was whether such an administrative reshuffle of enforcement responsibilities was legally permissible. Delving down into the RERA’s statutory provisions, the RERA Act of 2016 tells us that the authority, the Adjudicating Officer and the Appellate Tribunal are the three pillars of adjudication. Each of them has a distinct area of jurisdiction.

The Adjudicating Officers are authorised to decide compensation claims resulting from false advertisements, construction delays, or breach of contractual obligations under Sections 12¹³, 14¹⁴, 18¹⁵ and 19¹⁶ while the penalties that shall be imposed are assessed by the authority and tribunal under Sections 34¹⁷ and 59-70¹⁸. Although Section 40(1)¹⁹ establishes a common procedure for recovering any monetary amount imposed by these authorities, it did not permit the sharing of authority or responsibility between them. The Government of Haryana by using Section 81²⁰ of the RERA Act, which permits the authority to delegate its powers and Section 27²¹ of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, allowed the State to grant the powers of the Collector to anyone. This was severely criticised by the High Court, which noted that power delegation could not go beyond express statutory limitations. Section 27, which is general in nature cannot override a special statute like the RERA Act. This interpretation was further fortified by Rule 27 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (HRERA Rules, 2017)²² which provides that if an authority is unable to execute its own orders, it may send them to the civil court for enforcement but under no circumstances does the rule allow for substitution or transfer of enforcement powers between authorities.

In 2022, a Single Bench of this very Court in International Land Developers (P) Ltd. v. Aditi Chauhan²³, addressed three petitions in which the developer challenged orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer under the RERA Act, directing refund of payments to allottees along with interest. The petitioner argued that refund directions are outside the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer, by quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.²⁴, which clearly stated that refund and compensation orders must be passed by the authority and not the Adjudicating Officer. The petitioner also sought waiver of the mandatory predeposit required under Section 43(5)²⁵ of the RERA Act to file an appeal. The High Court then refused to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226²⁶, reiterating that the appropriate remedy should be sought from the Appellate Tribunal. It declined to waive the predeposit, reaffirming that mere financial hardship was not a ground to override statutory requirements. The Court upheld the validity of the predeposit condition, highlighting that statutory appellate mechanisms must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench in its ruling declared it per incuriam for failing to consider Rule 27²⁷ and the difference between adjudication and enforcement as under the RERA Act. The Division Bench restored clarity to a system that was in danger of becoming administratively convenient but legally unsound. It was also made very clear that mere difficulty in enforcement does not mean the executive may unilaterally rewrite the playing grounds of the game. In a recent interim order, the Allahabad High Court, while pondering upon the RERA order in Experion Developers (P) Ltd. v. U.P. RERA²⁸, has expressed concern over the constitution of quasi-judicial panels. Noting that adding an Adjudicating Officer to a Bench that already had statutory members is against the soul of the RERA Act. Even while the case is sub judice and the order is not meant to set a precedent, it highlights the importance of rules over administrative exigency.

The Gujarat Model of RERA offers a striking example of how statutory fidelity and administrative innovation can coexist to ensure effective recovery of dues. Unlike other States, Gujarat has institutionalised a system where Tahsildars and revenue officials are formally deputed to the RERA and operate under the delegated authority of the District Collector to execute recovery certificates issued by the RERA as arrears of land revenue as under the provisions of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879²⁹. This way, they neither bypass the statutory limitations nor overstep the fine boundary of adjudicatory and executive roles. It has proven to work closely to the framework under Section 40(1) of the RERA Act. Recovery certificates are issued by the authority and are routed through the Revenue Department and implemented by designated field officers empowered under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. These officers can issue writs of demand, attach, and auction assets, and initiate proceedings without requiring structural changes within the authority. This ensures that the enforcement is decentralised and swift and does not encroach upon the independence or role of Adjudicating Officers, thereby upholding both legality and efficiency. In contrast, Haryana’s attempt to vest Adjudicating Officers with Collector powers was struck down for being ultra vires and violative of Article 14³⁰ of the Constitution³¹. What sets Gujarat apart is not merely the efficiency of execution, but the way it has respected the statutory limits imposed by the RERA framework. It shows that recovery as prescribed under Section 40(1) need not be delayed or compromised if inter-departmental coordination is institutionalised and revenue officers are integrated without undermining the independence of quasi-judicial bodies. Gujarat’s refusal to confer coercive powers on Adjudicating Officers also echoes the spirit of Article 50³² of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of separation between adjudicatory and executive functions. While the RERA Act is a regulatory statute and not a pure judicial forum, the constitutional logic still applies i.e. institutions exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers must remain insulated from executive overreach.

The real estate sector has been plagued by the systemic lack of transparency and unequal power for a long time. It cannot be meaningfully changed unless the institutions that are supposed to regulate it are given not only power, but also clarity, independence and procedural integrity. What emerges from this judicial landscape is a quiet yet powerful assertion: The credibility of a regulatory framework lies not in the volume of its orders, but in the integrity of its structure. As High Courts draw the line against institutional improvisation, they are not opposing reform, rather they are insisting that reform must flow from law and not convenience. The success of any regulatory statute, particularly in a sector as layered as real estate depends not just on how swiftly it punishes or compensates, but on how faithfully it sustains the foundation it was built upon. In the long arc of administrative law, the battle is rarely between power and restraint; it is between power and process. It is through these processes that the law breathes, evolves, and earns its legitimacy. As RERAs mature, its future will depend not only on enforcement capacity but on continued willingness of States to build within the law, not around it.