High Court Orders RERA to Enforce Orders Promptly: Key Insights and Impact

The enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) was aimed at safeguarding the interests of home buyers and ensuring timely enforcement of their rights. However, the efficacy of any adjudicatory mechanism depends significantly on the prompt action of regulatory authorities in translating their orders into tangible relief. The recent judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Pradeep Kumar Dhandhania and Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Ors., Writ Petition No. 34627 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided on 22 April 2026, highlights this critical aspect by censuring the inaction of the Regulatory Authority and directing it to enforce its own adjudicatory mandate.

The petitioners in this case are bona fide purchasers of a residential apartment in the “Pashmina Waterfront” project developed by the respondent-developer. Aggrieved by the developer’s failure to execute the sale deed and deliver possession, the petitioners approached the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority by filing complaint number CMP/210630/0008069.

Upon due inquiry, the Authority passed a comprehensive order dated 28 March 2024 under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016. The order directed the developer to execute the sale deed and hand over possession of the flat within sixty days from the date of the order. Additionally, the developer was directed to pay Rs. 69,65,830 towards interest on the delay period, calculated at the rate of nine per cent per annum from 31 May 2015 to 30 May 2017, and at the rate of SBI MCLR plus two per cent from 1 May 2017 until the date of handing over possession. The order also reserved the liberty of the complainants to enforce the same in accordance with the law in the event of non-compliance by the developer.

Despite the definitive nature of the order, the developer failed to comply with either the direction pertaining to possession or the monetary award. Consequently, the petitioners initiated the execution machinery by filing an execution petition before the Authority. However, the Authority remained inactive and failed to take cognizance of the execution petition or initiate any steps to secure compliance for nearly two years. Faced with such administrative apathy, the petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Authority to discharge its statutory obligations.

The petitioners contended that having succeeded before the Regulatory Authority, they were entitled to the fruits of the decree. They emphasized that the Authority could not abdicate its statutory obligation to enforce its own orders, particularly when the statute itself provided a specific and efficacious mechanism for recovery and compliance. The continued inaction caused grave prejudice and irreparable injury, depriving them of both possession of their flat and the monetary compensation awarded in their favor. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a statutory remedy cannot be permitted to become a mere parchment right on account of executive inaction.

The case raised several fundamental issues before the Karnataka High Court: 1. Whether the RERA Authority is vested with a mandatory statutory duty to enforce its own orders under Section 40(2) of the RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 26 of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. 2. Whether the prolonged delay of nearly two years in initiating execution proceedings amounted to a clear dereliction of statutory duty. 3. Whether the petitioners, having acquired an enforceable legal right pursuant to the Authority’s order, were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enforce the order and recover the awarded amounts in accordance with the statutory framework.

The Court’s analysis focused on the statutory provisions governing the enforcement mechanism under RERA. Section 31 of the Act empowers the Regulatory Authority to pass orders on complaints, including directions for execution of sale deeds, delivery of possession, and payment of interest or compensation. However, the adjudicatory function would be rendered nugatory in the absence of an equally robust enforcement mechanism. This gap is filled by Section 40(2) of the Act, which mandates that the Authority shall adopt the mode of recovery as arrears of land revenue for enforcing its orders, particularly in relation to recovery of amounts. Rule 26 of the Karnataka RERA Rules, 2017, further empowers and obligates the Authority to ensure enforcement of its orders or that of the Appellate Tribunal, including by referring matters to the Principal Civil Court where necessary.

The Court expressed significant concern over the inaction and administrative apathy of the Authority, stating that the right crystallized in favor of the petitioners by virtue of the order passed under Section 31 cannot be permitted to remain illusory due to executive inaction. The Authority, being a creature of statute, is bound to act in aid of its own orders and cannot abdicate its statutory obligations. The delay of nearly two years in not initiating execution proceedings, despite a formal application by the petitioners, amounts to a clear dereliction of duty and defeats the very object of the enactment, which seeks to instill confidence among home buyers and ensure timely delivery of projects.

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to seek a writ of mandamus directing the Authority to discharge its statutory obligations. Accordingly, the Court issued comprehensive directions: 1. Cognizance of the execution petition: A writ of mandamus was issued directing the first respondent Authority to take cognizance of the execution petition filed by the petitioners and proceed with the execution of the order dated 28 March 2024 strictly in terms of Section 40(2) of the Act read with Rule 26 of the Rules. 2. Execution of sale deed and possession of Flat No. T0308D: The Authority was directed to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court in accordance with Rule 26 within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 3. Payment of interest: The competent authority and Special Deputy Commissioner were directed to initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with Section 40(2) of the Act and recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, disbursing the same to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy. 4. Warning against further delay: The Court made it explicitly clear that any further delay or inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in complying with these directions shall be viewed seriously and may invite appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law.

The judgment in Pradeep Kumar Dhandhania and Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Ors. underscores the importance of regulatory authorities under the RERA framework not only as adjudicatory bodies but also as enforcers of their own orders. By issuing a writ of mandamus and imposing strict timelines for enforcement, the Karnataka High Court has reinforced the principle that statutory remedies must remain meaningful and effective, and that administrative inertia cannot be allowed to erode the rights of home buyers under a beneficial legislation enacted to protect their interests.