1. Promoter challenged a regulatory authority's directive to register a completed real estate project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
T.S. Sankara Raman – Appellant
Versus
Narayana Apartment Owners Association – Respondent
MSA NO. 124 OF 2026|REFA 190/26|K-RERA/T1/2170/2025
Important Points
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 operates retroactively; therefore, any project continuing or not completed (no Occupancy Certificate issued) as of the date of the Act's commencement must be mandatorily registered under Section 3.
Subject
Civil - Real Estate Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Mandatory Registration - Retroactive Application - If a project was ongoing on the date of commencement of the Act and the Occupancy Certificate was issued after the cutoff date, registration under Section 3 is mandatory regardless of when the project was launched. (Para 4, 9)
(B) Statutory Compliance - Promoter's Liability - The argument that a promoter exited the project or that the project is no longer a 'real estate project' after handover does not exempt the promoter from registration if the project was continuing as of the date the Act came into force. (Para 7, 10)
Issues: Whether the promoter was required to register a project that was ongoing on the date of commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, despite the project having been launched prior to the Act.
(B) Statutory Compliance - Promoter's Liability - The argument that a promoter exited the project or that the project is no longer a 'real estate project' after handover does not exempt the promoter from registration if the project was continuing as of the date the Act came into force. (Para 7, 10)
Issues: Whether the promoter was required to register a project that was ongoing on the date of commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, despite the project having been launched prior to the Act.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.S.S.Aravind, Sri.P.B.Subramanyan
For the Respondents: Sri.Babu S. Nair
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.S.S.Aravind, Sri.P.B.Subramanyan
For the Respondents: Sri.Babu S. Nair
Table of Contents
2. Promoter contended the project was completed pre-implementation of the authority and that mandatory registration requirements under Section 3 do not apply to projects already handed over to allottees. (Para 3 , 7 )
3. The Act has retroactive operation on ongoing projects, and the mandatory registration requirement applies as long as completion certificates were not issued prior to the Act's commencement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 )
4. Real estate projects that were ongoing and lacked completion certificates on the date of the Act’s commencement are mandatorily required to register under Section 3 of the Act. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 )
5. The appeal is dismissed, affirming the regulatory authority's order requiring mandatory project registration under the Act. (Para 11 )
6. Does the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 have retrospective application regarding project registration?
Yes, the Act has retroactive operation. Ongoing projects that remained incomplete—lacking an occupancy or completion certificate—at the time of the Act's commencement are subject to the mandatory registration requirements of Section 3. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 )
7. Can a promoter avoid project registration by arguing the project was completed and handed over to allottees?
No, if the project was ongoing on the date the Act came into force, registration is mandatory. The absence of a valid completion certificate as of the commencement date confirms the project's status as an ongoing project requiring registration. (Para 4 , 7 , 9 )
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
M.S.A. No.124 of 2026
.............................................................
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2026
JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous second appeal is filed against the order of the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in REFA No. 190/2026 dated 06.10.2026, rejecting the appeal filed against the order of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 23.01.2026 that directed registration of the project of the appellant named Narayana Apartment.
2. The Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) issued a show cause notice to the appellant/promoter as to why the project named Narayana Apartment, located at Kalpathy in Palakkad District, was not registered with the Authority under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The appellant responded to the said notice on 04.08.2025, contending that the project was launched in 2014 and completed in 2018 as per schedule, and that the Occupancy Certificate for the building was obtained on 05.03.2019, after which possession was handed over to the allottees.
3. It is further contended that the K-RERA was implemented only in the year 2020, by which time all the transactions relating to the project had been completed. It was further contended that at the time of completion of the project, there were no clear instructions regarding mandatory registration with K-RERA and thus sought a waiver from the requirement of mandatory registration, contending that there was no wilful omission or laches on his part.
4. The Authority found that as per the Central Government Notification No. S.O.1216(E) dated 19.04.2017, Section 3 of the Act came into force on 01.05.2017 and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2021) 18 SCC 1] held that Section 3 retrospectively operates with registered projects which were not completed or were continuing at the date of commencement of the Act. Since the registration was mandatory for projects that were not completed or were continuing as on the date of commencement of the Act, and as the Occupancy Certificate for the project was issued by the Palakkad Municipality only on 05.03.2019, further opportunity was given to the promoter for stating valid grounds for non-registration of the project.
5. The promoter was again heard, and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the Act, 2016, the promoter was directed to register the project with K-RERA under Section 3 of the Act, within 15 days from the date of the order. There was a further direction that till the project is registered, the promoter shall not advertise, market, sell or collect any amount from the allottees in respect of the said project, and the failure to comply with the said directions will attract penalties under Section 59(1) of the Act.
6. The above order was challenged before the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which affirmed the findings by relying on the judgment of this Court in IFCI Infrastructure Development Ltd. v. K-RERA [2024 (5) KHC 238], where similar arguments made were repelled. However, three weeks’ time was granted to comply with the order passed by K-RERA.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the order, contending that the promoter had exited from the project and therefore a registration under Section 3 was not required. It is also argued that once the development of the building or land and sale are complete and the project is handed over to the allottees and taken over by the association, it is no longer a real estate project, and the promoter is no longer a promoter as defined under the Act. It is argued that the judgment relied on by the Appellate Tribunal did not consider whether any procedure or process of registration existed before the actual authority was constituted in 2
