Collective Grievances Under RERA Must Be Filed by Homebuyers' Associations, Not Individuals: MahaRERA

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that collective grievances affecting a real estate project must be pursued by a homeowners' association or with the backing of a majority of allottees, and not by a few individuals acting in their personal capacity.

Dismissing a complaint filed by five homebuyers of the 'Kohinoor Kaleido – Phase 1' project in Pune, a bench comprising Member Mahesh Pathak held that “In the absence of such authorization, issues of a collective nature cannot be adjudicated in a complaint filed by a few allottees in their individual capacity.”

The complaint was filed against Intofinity Promoters Private Limited, the project's developer. The homebuyers alleged that the developer had constructed a transformer and DG room structure in front of Phase 1, in deviation from the sanctioned layout plan shown to them at the time of booking.

According to the complainants, both the approved layout plan and the 3D model visuals had depicted an open frontage with an unobstructed view. They claimed that the transformer structure did not feature in the sanctioned plans for either Phase 1 or Phase 2, and that it blocked the open façade represented to them.

The homebuyers then went on to allege that the construction was carried out without obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the allottees, as required under Section 14(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. They said the deviation amounted to misrepresentation and an unauthorised alteration of the project layout.

The developer opposed the complaint primarily on the ground of maintainability. It argued that the project's completion date is December 2027 and that the complaint was premature. It also maintained that the relocation of the transformer was a minor modification necessitated by statutory directions and site constraints, and that individual allottees could not seek relief affecting common infrastructure.

On the question of jurisdiction, MahaRERA rejected the developer's objection. It held that while sanctioning building pans is a civic authority function, allegations of its deviation fell within the authority's domain.

The authority also brushed aside the argument that the complaint was premature. It noted that allegations of misrepresentation or unauthorised deviation are not tied to the agreed date of possession and can be examined once a cause of action arises.

However, on maintainability, MahaRERA sided with the developer. It held that the reliefs sought related to matters affecting all allottees and, in certain respects, the project as a whole. The homebuyers, it noted, had failed to show that they were authorised by a majority of allottees or by any registered association.

On that limited ground, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint without examining the merits of the allegations. It granted liberty to the homebuyers to file a fresh complaint limited to their individual grievances or to approach the Authority through a duly constituted association of allottees for collective issues.

Case Title: Alok Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Intofinity Promoters Private Limited

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 15

Case No: Complaint No. CC12502984

For Complainants: Advocate Alok Kumar for Complainants;

For Respondent: Advocate Diksha Dhoka for Respondent.