REAL ESTATE BLOG by Apex  

When RERA Shuts the Door: The Jurisdiction Problem Haunting Haryana Homebuyers

By Om Prakash Verma, Advocate on February 28, 2026

Introduction

Buying a home in India is often the single largest financial commitment a family will ever make. For millions of homebuyers in Haryana — one of India's most active real estate markets — the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) was meant to be the great equaliser: a legal shield against unscrupulous developers, delayed projects, and broken promises. Yet a troubling pattern has emerged in recent cases where the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has rejected homebuyer complaints, not on their merits, but on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The message to aggrieved buyers is stark: even a legitimate grievance can be turned away at the door.

What Is Happening?

In multiple recent cases, HRERA has dismissed homebuyer complaints by citing that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. This typically arises in situations involving projects that are not registered with RERA, disputes over projects straddling the boundaries between HRERA's two benches (Gurugram and Panchkula), or complaints that touch on contractual clauses — such as arbitration agreements — that developers argue strip RERA of its authority. In some instances, procedural missteps, such as a decision being passed by a single authority member without the required quorum, have also been used as grounds to challenge or nullify orders. The result is that buyers who have invested their life savings find themselves bounced between forums — RERA, consumer courts, civil courts, and appellate tribunals — with no resolution in sight.

Why This Matters

RERA was enacted with a singular purpose: to protect homebuyers and bring accountability to a sector historically plagued by opacity. When a regulatory body declines to hear complaints on jurisdictional grounds, it effectively denies consumers the very protection the law was designed to provide. For buyers who have already paid crores to developers, the financial and emotional cost of pursuing alternative legal remedies — through arbitration, consumer courts, or the High Court — is prohibitive. Developers, on the other hand, are well-resourced and legally sophisticated. Every procedural hurdle thrown in the path of a homebuyer is, in practice, a win for the builder. The jurisdiction debate is not just a technical legal question; it is a question of who the law ultimately serves.

The Bigger Picture

Courts and tribunals have, in several landmark rulings, attempted to push back against this narrowing of RERA's scope. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that even prospective allottees — buyers who deposited money for a project not yet registered — can approach RERA with their grievances. It has also reaffirmed that RERA's jurisdiction extends to unregistered projects, warning that allowing developers to evade scrutiny simply by not registering would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has further held that policy and quasi-judicial decisions must be taken by the Authority collectively, with proper quorum — a ruling that reinforces due process and collective accountability within RERA itself. Together, these rulings signal that the intent of the law is broad and buyer-protective. However, the gap between judicial intent and on-the-ground implementation remains wide.

Challenges Remain

Despite progressive court rulings, structural challenges continue to undermine RERA's effectiveness for Haryana homebuyers. First, the dual-bench structure of HRERA — with separate authorities for Gurugram and Panchkula covering distinct districts — creates confusion about which bench has jurisdiction over specific projects, particularly in rapidly developing peri-urban zones. Second, developers continue to invoke arbitration clauses in builder-buyer agreements as a shield against RERA proceedings, creating costly parallel litigation. Third, the quorum and procedural requirements for HRERA decision-making mean that administrative lapses can unravel hard-won orders, forcing buyers to restart their cases. Fourth, awareness among homebuyers about available remedies — including the right to appeal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act — remains low, leaving many buyers stranded after an adverse RERA order without pursuing the appellate route. Finally, the broader issue of delayed project completion, inadequate disclosure, and non-compliance by developers persists despite RERA's decade-long existence.

Conclusion and Suggestions

RERA remains one of the most powerful consumer protection frameworks India has ever legislated for any sector. But a law is only as strong as the institution enforcing it. For Haryana's homebuyers, the repeated invocation of 'lack of jurisdiction' as a grounds for dismissal is becoming a pattern that erodes trust and delays justice.

Several reforms deserve urgent attention. HRERA should issue clear, public guidelines demarcating the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction of each bench to minimise ambiguity. The State Government should amend rules to explicitly clarify that RERA jurisdiction cannot be ousted by arbitration clauses in builder-buyer agreements, in line with High Court precedent. HRERA must ensure strict quorum compliance for all orders, and buyers should be proactively informed of their right to appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Legal aid clinics and consumer awareness campaigns — particularly for middle-class buyers in Gurugram and Faridabad — would go a long way in empowering homebuyers to navigate the system. Ultimately, regulators must remember that jurisdiction is a tool for justice, not a shield against accountability.

The Real Estate Blog by Apex is compiled by Apex Legal Eagles, a specialized Real Estate law firm based in New Delhi & Haryana. The authors can be contacted at apexlegaleagles@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.