RERA orders digest, October 2026: four Telangana tribunal rulings on delay, refunds and plan changes

Rules and rates as of 12 October 2026.

This month's digest

The first edition of our monthly digest covers four orders of the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TG REAT), passed between 12 August and 9 September 2026 by a bench chaired by Justice A. Santhosh Reddy. We read each one on the Telangana RERA portal. We left out orders from other states because we could not open the official copies.

1. Extending registration does not extend your possession date

M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi and 30 connected appeals, T.A. Nos. 17 to 47 of 2026, 9 September 2026. The project is Vasavi Lake City-West, Hafeezpet. The agreements promised possession by 31 August 2024, with six months' grace. The project's RERA registration ran to 7 February 2025 and was then extended to 7 February 2026. The developer argued the extension, and Covid-19, excused the delay.

The tribunal disagreed. It held that extending a project's registration under section 6 does not automatically move the completion date in your agreement, and the promoter cannot change that date on its own. The Covid plea was "wholly untenable" because the agreements were signed in 2022, after the lockdowns. All 31 appeals were dismissed. The Authority's orders of 30 December 2025 stand: interest at 10.70% a year, which the order describes as SBI MCLR plus 2% under Rule 15 of the Telangana rules, on the amount each buyer paid, from 1 March 2025 until possession.

For buyers: a new expiry date on the RERA portal does not reset your clock; your agreement's date does.

2. A plot sold twice: refund with interest from the agreement date

Sandeep Kumar and Smt. Shipali v. M/s Amacon Developers and others, T.A. No. 99 of 2025, 12 August 2026. The buyers agreed on 9 April 2021 to buy Plot 895 in the DLF Garden City layout for ₹37,38,000 and paid ₹36,58,000. The seller later registered the same plot in someone else's name. The Authority ordered a refund of ₹36,58,000 with interest at 10.75% (SBI MCLR of 8.75% plus 2%) from 9 April 2021. The seller called itself only an agent. The tribunal held that it acted as a promoter under section 2(zk), so section 18(1) applies. It declined to make the DLF-linked landowning companies liable.

For buyers: whoever sells to you as the owner is answerable as a promoter, whatever it calls itself. Your claim may not reach the companies further up the chain.

3. Money paid to a marketing agent above the agreement price

M/s Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. K. Vijaya Lakshmi and others, T.A. No. 13 of 2026, 12 August 2026. The buyer agreed to buy a 1,000 sq ft commercial unit at Poojitha Tech Park, Kokapet, for ₹73,92,000. In total she paid ₹1,02,94,100, and the extra ₹29,02,100 went through an unregistered agent. The developer's plea that the agreement was forged failed. The tribunal upheld orders that the developer register the sale deed within 45 days, and that the agent refund ₹29,02,100 with 10.75% interest from each payment date. The developer was not held liable for the excess because there was no evidence it had demanded or acknowledged it.

For buyers: pay only against the agreement, into the developer's account. Recovering an "extra" paid to a middleman is much harder.

4. Adding a floor needs two-thirds of buyers' consent

Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP and others v. Neelima Vanguru, T.A. No. 35 of 2024, 9 September 2026. At Trendset Jayabheri Elevate in Kondapur, the developer added a floor to the clubhouse and did not upload the revised building permit. The tribunal upheld a penalty of ₹27,50,000 under sections 60 and 61. Its reason: the developer had not taken "two-third consent from the allottees" before getting the revised plan, which section 14(2) requires.

For buyers: changes to sanctioned plans or common areas need written consent from two-thirds of allottees. A new floor or block you never agreed to is something you can challenge.

The four orders side by side

Case	Date	Section	Outcome	Amount
Vasavi Realtors v. Taru Trivedi (T.A. 17–47/2026)	9 Sep 2026	18(1) proviso, 6	31 developer appeals dismissed	10.70% a year on amount paid, from 1 Mar 2025
Sandeep Kumar v. Amacon Developers (T.A. 99/2025)	12 Aug 2026	18(1), 2(zk)	Refund upheld; buyers' appeal dismissed	₹36,58,000 + 10.75% from 9 Apr 2021
Viana Homes v. K. Vijaya Lakshmi (T.A. 13/2026)	12 Aug 2026	9, 63, 65	Sale deed in 45 days; agent to refund	₹29,02,100 + 10.75%
Trendset Jayabheri v. Neelima Vanguru (T.A. 35/2024)	9 Sep 2026	14(2), 60, 61	Penalty upheld	₹27,50,000 penalty

Worked example: what the refund in order 2 adds up to

Telangana's Rule 15 sets the rate as SBI's highest MCLR plus 2%. In practice the rate is the one written into your order: 10.75% in the August orders and 10.70% in Vasavi, because SBI's MCLR had moved between the Authority's orders. We assume simple interest. The orders do not say whether interest compounds, so check yours.

Formula: interest = amount paid × rate × days ÷ 365.

• Amount paid: ₹36,58,000; rate 10.75%; from 9 April 2021.
• Days from 9 April 2021 to 12 October 2026: 2,012.
• Interest: 36,58,000 × 0.1075 × 2,012 ÷ 365 = ₹21,67,641.
• Total if paid on 12 October 2026: ₹58,25,641, and growing by about ₹32,770 a month (36,58,000 × 0.1075 ÷ 12).

This is our own illustrative arithmetic; the order states no total.