A recent ruling by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has reignited debate over regulatory accountability within India’s real estate oversight framework, after it overturned a financial penalty imposed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
At the centre of the dispute lies a core promise of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: that project approvals and registrations would operate within strict statutory timelines to reduce discretion, delay and uncertainty. The tribunal’s order signals that this obligation binds regulators as firmly as it does developers. The case stemmed from a housing scheme promoted by the DDA that was advertised before formal project registration was issued. RERA treated the move as a violation of Section 3 of the Act and imposed a monetary penalty, arguing that the project could not claim protection under the Act’s “deemed registration” provision because its application process was allegedly incomplete. However, the appellate body rejected this interpretation, holding that the statute does not allow regulatory authorities to indefinitely hold applications in limbo by raising procedural objections after extended periods. According to the tribunal, once an application is received, the regulator must either grant approval or reject it within 30 days, as mandated under Section 5. Urban policy experts say the ruling is significant because it clarifies a long-contested grey area within RERA implementation. While authorities have frequently insisted that the statutory clock starts only after a “complete” application is submitted, the tribunal has now underscored that the law itself makes no such distinction.
Any other reading, the order noted, would undermine the Act’s objective of predictable and time-bound governance. The judgment also carries implications beyond a single authority or project. Across multiple states, promoters both public and private have complained of delayed RERA registrations despite early submissions, leading to stalled launches, financing uncertainty and rising holding costs. By reinforcing the concept of deemed registration, the tribunal has effectively rebalanced power between regulators and applicants. For public agencies such as the DDA, the ruling is also a reminder that they are subject to the same regulatory discipline as private developers. At the same time, it exposes institutional weaknesses within regulatory bodies that were designed to eliminate opacity but now face criticism for procedural bottlenecks. Importantly, the tribunal went a step further by issuing forward-looking directions. It instructed RERA to strictly adhere to statutory timelines and, where deadlines lapse, to issue registration credentials without delay. Legal observers say this converts what was often treated as a theoretical safeguard into an enforceable administrative obligation. As India’s real estate market becomes increasingly regulated, the credibility of institutions like RERA depends not only on enforcement against developers, but also on internal compliance with the law’s own checks and balances.
The ruling serves as a reminder that regulatory authority derives its legitimacy from adherence to process as much as from punitive power. For the sector at large, the decision may encourage faster clearances or at the very least, clearer refusals bringing RERA closer to its original mandate of transparency, predictability and trust in urban housing markets.
Also Read: MTNL Real Estate Sales Signal State Retrenchment
RERA Timelines Under Scrutiny After Tribunal Rebukes Regulator
