Real Estate Disputes in Noida and Greater Noida: Development Authorities, UP RERA and the Courts That Decide Them

By Bhaskar Subramanian, Partner, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors and Adv. Rahul Jangra, Associate, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors

Published 28 October 2026 · Law stated as on 26 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer

Noida and Greater Noida sit on leasehold land controlled by statutory development authorities, a structure most of India's real estate market does not share, and that structure keeps producing disputes that RERA alone cannot resolve. This piece sets out where the development authorities' powers end, where UP RERA and its appellate tribunal begin, and what the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court have actually decided about cancellations, delay and the registry deadlock stalling tens of thousands of flats.

Two regimes, one flat

A flat bought in Noida or Greater Noida sits inside a double structure that most Indian homebuyers never encounter. Underneath it is leasehold land that the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority or the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority holds from the State of Uttar Pradesh and allots or sub-leases to a builder, who then sub-leases individual units to buyers. Above that sits the regulatory layer created by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which governs the promoter's obligations to the buyer on disclosure, construction timelines, possession and refunds. The two layers answer to different statutes, different adjudicating bodies and, in practice, different lawyers.

That separation matters because the remedy a buyer or a developer needs depends entirely on which layer the problem sits in. A builder who has not paid the authority its land premium and cannot get the buyer's flat registered has an authority problem, not a RERA problem, however much the buyer experiences it as a RERA-shaped grievance. A builder who has delayed possession by three years because of its own mismanagement, while current on its dues to the authority, has a RERA problem. Many disputes in this market are, in fact, both, and the forum chosen first can end up deciding what relief is practically available at all. This piece works through the authority layer, the RERA layer, and the points where they collide, principally the insolvency of a developer and the ongoing registry crisis that has frozen possession documents for a very large number of flats.

The development authorities: statutory basis and the shape of the title

NOIDA was constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, which gives the state government power to declare an area an industrial development area and to set up an authority to acquire land, develop it and allot it on lease. Greater Noida followed the same model under the same Act, and the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority was constituted later for the area along the expressway. None of the three authorities sells freehold land. Each grants a lease, typically for ninety years, and the allottee's rights are defined by the allotment letter and the lease deed, both of which are standard-form documents drafted by the authority and largely non-negotiable.

For a group housing project, the developer takes the lease from the authority and then grants a sub-lease to each flat buyer once the building is complete and the authority's dues are cleared. The buyer's registered sub-lease deed is what creates their title, and a transfer memorandum, a separate charge paid to the authority, is required when a flat changes hands in resale because the underlying interest is leasehold and the authority has to record the change of lessee. This explains why a buyer who has paid the builder in full can still be unable to register their flat: registration requires the builder to have cleared its dues to the authority, and if it has not, the authority will not process the transfer memorandum or, in the case of a first sale, the sub-lease itself.

The practical consequence is that an allottee's security depends on the builder's standing with the authority as much as on the builder's own solvency, a layer of dependency that does not exist for freehold property bought through a straightforward sale deed. A buyer evaluating a resale flat in these townships should always ask for the authority's no-dues certificate for the specific unit, not merely the builder's receipt, before paying any part of the consideration.

Lease and allotment cancellation: the grounds the authorities actually use

The authorities cancel allotments and leases for two broad reasons. The first is payment default: an allottee, whether an individual or a developer, who misses instalments on the premium or ground rent can have the allotment cancelled after notice, usually following a structured series of default notices set out in the allotment terms. The second is non-utilisation: a 2020 ordinance, later enacted as the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development (Amendment) Act, 2022, requires allottees who have held a plot for more than a specified period, generally eight years, without completing construction and obtaining a completion certificate, either to finish the project or face cancellation, and later statements from the authorities have referred to a twelve-year outer limit for plots that remain wholly unused. Through 2025, Noida Authority used this power against long-vacant IT and institutional plots, and a state government revision order in October 2025 upheld the cancellation of a batch of such plots, including one allotted for IT use in Sector 62, on the basis that construction had not crossed the ten per cent threshold the authority treats as the dividing line between genuine progress and dormancy.

A cancellation order is not usually the end of the matter from the allottee's side. The authority's internal terms and the governing Acts provide an avenue for revision, and the state government has used this power both to confirm cancellations, as in the Sector 62 IT plots, and to reverse them, as it did for a Wave Group commercial lease in Noida that had been cancelled in 2021. In that case the state government restored the lease on a revision petition filed under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and Section 12 of the Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, but attached conditions: the developer's dues were recalculated under the authority's settlement policy framework and the developer was barred from creating third-party rights in the land until it met the revised terms in full. Revision is therefore not a reset button. It is a negotiated path back into compliance, available at the state government's discretion, and an allottee who wants to use it needs to come with a credible plan to clear what it owes, not merely a legal argument that the cancellation was procedurally defective.

Writ jurisdiction versus revision: what the courts have actually done

Where revision fails or is not pursued, the remedy most allottees reach for is a writ petition under Article 226 before the Allahabad High Court, on the footing that the authority is a statutory body exercising public functions and its cancellation order is amenable to judicial review even though the underlying relationship is contractual. The High Court has not treated this as an open door. Its pattern across recent decisions is consistent: relief follows where the authority itself has failed to perform a duty it owed the allottee, and relief is refused where the allottee's own default or delay is the real cause of the dispute.

The clearest refusal is the Supreme Court's own ruling in Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and another versus State of U.P. and others, decided on 9 July 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 2008, where the Court declined to interfere with NOIDA's cancellation of an allotment in Sector 62 for non-payment, treating the authority's contractual terms on default as enforceable on their own language. The Allahabad High Court has continued to apply that reasoning. In Savita Sharma versus State of U.P. and two others, a 2025 Division Bench decision concerning a Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority lease, the Court held that it could not allow deliberate, repeated default by an allottee to be rewarded with restoration, treated Skyline Contractors as squarely applicable, and rejected the allottee's plea of financial hardship and medical difficulty as an excuse for years of non-compliance with the lease's essential terms. The case did not concern Noida itself, but the reasoning applies with equal force to NOIDA and Greater Noida leases drafted on the same statutory template.

Against that, the Court has granted relief where the authority's own conduct caused or compounded the allottee's difficulty. In a writ petition concerning an institutional plot in Noida's Sector 1 allotted to Pawan Hans Limited, the High Court directed the authority to review its own cancellation order after the allottee argued that the enhanced rent and interest the authority had charged were not properly notified under the terms of the original lease, and the Court stayed coercive recovery in the meantime. Separately, reported decisions describe cancellations being set aside where the Greater Noida Authority had failed to meet its own statutory obligations in processing an application, and where a development authority had cancelled an allotment without ever having delivered physical possession of the plot to the allottee in the first place. A different and more recent pattern involves conditional relief rather than outright reversal: in a 2026 Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority matter concerning Sunworld City, the Allahabad High Court set aside a cancellation on the condition that the allottee pay the outstanding balance together with penal interest, rather than simply reinstating the allotment without cost.

The dividing line that emerges from this run of decisions is reasonably stable, though it is applied case by case rather than through a bright-line test: an authority's cancellation survives judicial scrutiny where the allottee's default is real and sustained and the authority followed its own notice procedure, and it is set aside, usually on terms, where the authority's own omission, whether in notice, in delivering possession, or in deciding an application within a reasonable time, contributed materially to the default. A separate, unresolved question sits underneath this line: whether a writ petition is maintainable at all where the lease deed itself provides for disputes to go to the civil courts of Gautam Buddh Nagar, as the standard Noida lease does, since a contractual forum clause does not usually oust writ jurisdiction over a public authority's statutory functions but can affect it where the grievance is purely contractual rather than an exercise of public power. The High Court has not resolved this tension in a single authoritative ruling, and petitioners continue to frame their cases, where possible, around the authority's public function rather than its contractual role, since that framing is what has succeeded in the cases above.

UP RERA: registration, complaints and the delay interest regime

Where the grievance is against the promoter rather than the authority, principally delayed possession, misrepresentation at the time of booking, or deviation from sanctioned plans, the forum is the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, constituted under Section 20 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. UP RERA requires every project above the statutory size threshold to be registered before it is advertised or sold, and a project's registration carries a declared completion date that becomes the benchmark against which delay is measured.

A complaint under Section 31 of the Act can be filed by an allottee seeking either possession with delay compensation or a refund with interest under Section 18, and the interest rate UP RERA applies, under its own notified rules, is the State Bank of India's highest marginal cost of funds based lending rate plus one per cent (several other states have instead adopted a plus-two-per-cent formula), applied both ways: the promoter pays it to a delayed buyer, and a buyer who defaults on instalments owes the promoter the same rate. The complaint process before the Authority's adjudicating officer is intended to be summary, and orders typically issue within a matter of months rather than years, though the backlog at UP RERA's benches, which sit primarily at Lucknow with hearings also conducted for the NCR region, has at times lengthened that timeline.

A homebuyer who has taken possession under protest, or who signed possession-related paperwork to get the keys, does not thereby lose the right to claim delay compensation for the period before possession, a point the Allahabad High Court confirmed in a case involving Antriksh Developers, where it held that accepting delayed possession does not bar a later claim for delay interest. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's broader position that one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement, of the kind that try to cap or waive the promoter's delay liability once possession is handed over, do not bind a consumer who had no real opportunity to negotiate them.

The UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and the price of a promoter's appeal

An order of the UP RERA adjudicating officer or the Authority itself is appealable to the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, notified in January 2018 and sitting with jurisdiction over the whole state. Any aggrieved person, which can include a party affected by the order even if not formally before the Authority, may file the appeal, and the tribunal's own procedural rules, the UP REAT Rules and Regulations, 2019, govern the filing.

The one feature of this appeal that most affects outcomes is the condition attached to it when the appellant is the promoter. The proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act requires a promoter appealing an order involving payment to first deposit at least thirty per cent of the penalty, or the full amount payable to the allottee, including any interest and compensation, depending on which figure the order fixes, before the appeal can be entertained. The Supreme Court upheld this condition against a constitutional challenge in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited versus State of U.P., holding that the pre-deposit requirement is neither discriminatory nor violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and reasoning that a promoter should demonstrate good faith by making the deposit before being heard on the merits of an appeal that, by definition, concerns money it has been ordered to pay. UP REAT has applied this condition strictly at the execution stage too, holding that a promoter cannot appeal even a consequential execution order without first depositing the full decretal amount with interest.

For a developer facing an adverse RERA order, this means the appeal route is not a free second attempt. The deposit has to be arranged before the appeal is heard at all, and developers who are already cash-strained, often the same developers behind the stalled projects discussed below, frequently cannot meet it, which leaves the original order standing as a practical matter even where the developer disputes it on genuine grounds. For the allottee on the other side, the pre-deposit requirement is one of the few structural features of this regime that works reliably in their favour, since it means a RERA order, once passed, carries real pressure even before any appeal is decided.

RERA, the civil court and the writ petition: Section 79 and its two limbs

Section 79 of the Real Estate Act bars a civil court from entertaining a suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority, the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, and separately restrains any court or authority from granting an injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the powers conferred by the Act. Courts reading this provision, including in reasoning the Madras High Court has set out at length, treat it as having exactly those two distinct limbs: an ouster of civil jurisdiction over matters RERA can decide, and a bar on injunctions against RERA-sanctioned action, which is narrower and does not touch every dispute merely because it arises from a real estate project.

Two consequences follow for how a case should be framed. First, where no agreement for sale was ever executed between the parties, a district court in Delhi has held that the Section 79 bar does not apply at all, because the dispute is not one RERA's statutory scheme was built to adjudicate, and a civil suit for refund can proceed. Second, the Supreme Court has held separately that Section 79 does not bar a consumer from approaching a consumer commission under the Consumer Protection Act, reasoning that a consumer forum is not a civil court for the purposes of the bar, so a homebuyer retains, in principle, a choice between RERA and the consumer forum for disputes both can hear, though the same homebuyer cannot run both proceedings simultaneously on the same cause and is held, once an election is made, to the forum chosen.

None of this touches disputes against the development authority itself, over title, over possession of land as distinct from a flat, or over the validity of a lease cancellation. Those sit outside RERA's subject matter altogether, which is why the writ petition route discussed earlier, rather than a RERA complaint, remains the correct vehicle for grievances against NOIDA, Greater Noida or the Yamuna Expressway authority as landowners rather than as regulators of the promoter.

The registry deadlock: why paid-up buyers still cannot get their flats registered

The single largest practical problem facing homebuyers in this market today is not a RERA delay dispute in the conventional sense but a structural deadlock over land dues. A substantial number of group housing projects in Noida and Greater Noida were built by developers who took possession of land on deferred payment terms and then fell behind on the instalments owed to the authority, often because of the same liquidity stress that caused the construction delays underlying so many RERA complaints. Because registration of a flat requires the authority to issue a no-objection certificate confirming the project's dues are settled, buyers who have paid the builder in full, and who may even be living in the flat, remain without a registered sub-lease deed, which leaves their legal title incomplete and makes resale, mortgage and inheritance all materially harder.

The Uttar Pradesh government's response, following recommendations from a committee headed by the former NITI Aayog chief executive Amitabh Kant, was a rehabilitation policy approved in December 2023 that gave developers a two-year zero period during which interest and penalties on outstanding dues are waived, and allowed developers to clear their liability by paying twenty-five per cent of the recalculated dues upfront with the remaining seventy-five per cent spread over three years, unlocking proportionate registrations as payments are made. The policy has produced real, if partial, results. Developments such as Grand Omaxe in Sector 93B used the scheme to deposit a substantial sum against its dues and secure sub-leases for a batch of its flats, with a large number still pending, and Paramount Floraville in Sector 137 cleared its outstanding liability entirely in 2026 and secured registration for over fifteen hundred buyers at once. Set against that, reporting through 2025 and 2026 continued to describe tens of thousands of flats across both townships still awaiting registration, with the authorities and the state government disagreeing publicly over whether a further relief step, a proposal to let registrations proceed on payment of only the proportionate dues plus a surcharge rather than the full outstanding amount, has actually been approved.

Noida Authority has also begun using a harder instrument against developers who have not engaged with the scheme at all, announcing that it will attach and auction the assets of builders who remain in breach of the stalled-housing policy's terms. For a buyer caught in this situation, the practical course is rarely a RERA complaint, since the promoter's default here is toward the authority rather than directly toward the buyer in a way Section 18 squarely addresses, though a refund claim remains open where the buyer prefers to exit rather than wait. More often it means engaging directly, through the buyers' association where one exists, with the authority's settlement process, tracking whether the specific project has been admitted to the 2023 scheme, and pressing for the proportionate registration route project associations have negotiated in some of the larger developments.

When the developer goes into insolvency: homebuyers as financial creditors

A meaningful number of Noida and Greater Noida projects have, over the past decade, ended up before the National Company Law Tribunal after a financial creditor or an aggrieved allottee initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process against the developer. The 2018 amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code made this possible by defining a homebuyer's advance toward a flat as a financial debt under Section 5(8)(f), which means allottees sit on the committee of creditors alongside banks and other lenders rather than being treated as unsecured operational creditors with a far weaker claim.

The Amrapali group's insolvency remains the reference point most buyers in this market still invoke, even though its most active phase of Supreme Court intervention is now some years behind it. The Court took direct charge of completing stalled Amrapali towers, permitted other developers to step in as co-developers on specific projects, and found evidence of fund diversion running into the thousands of crores, a trajectory that pushed the Court toward hands-on supervision rather than a conventional resolution plan voted through by a committee of creditors. That precedent shapes how courts and the NCLT treat later developer insolvencies in this belt: homebuyers are taken seriously as a creditor class, buyer associations are given standing to be heard, and completion of construction is treated as a legitimate objective of the resolution process in its own right, not merely a side effect of maximising recovery for financial lenders.

The harder edge of this framework is what happens once a resolution plan is actually approved. A resolution plan extinguishes claims not provided for within it, and the National Company Law Tribunal's Mumbai bench has held, in a ruling concerning a different stalled project, that an approved plan which addresses homebuyers' claims collectively can extinguish an individual allottee's separate RERA refund claim, so a buyer who has a RERA order in hand against an insolvent developer still needs to file that claim formally in the insolvency process rather than assume the RERA order itself survives untouched. Any Noida or Greater Noida buyer dealing with a developer that has entered or is at risk of entering insolvency should treat the claims process before the resolution professional, not the RERA proceeding alone, as the step that actually protects their position.

A practical sequence for an aggrieved allottee

The forum question above is not academic, and getting it wrong wastes the limitation period available for the right one. A workable sequence starts with identifying who has actually defaulted. If the builder has delayed possession, misrepresented the project, or deviated from sanctioned specifications while remaining current with the authority, the complaint belongs before UP RERA under Section 31, seeking possession with Section 18 compensation or a refund with interest, and that complaint should be filed with the project's RERA registration number, the booking documents, payment receipts and any written communication on the promised date of possession assembled before filing, since the adjudicating officer's process moves quickly once admitted and incomplete filings cause avoidable delay.

If instead the builder's problem is unpaid dues to the authority that are blocking registration, the first step is confirming, through the authority's own records or a right-to-information request, whether the specific project has been admitted into the 2023 stalled-projects scheme and what balance remains outstanding, because the practical remedy here runs through the authority's settlement process and, where an active buyers' association exists, through its collective engagement with the authority rather than an individual RERA filing. Where the authority itself has acted against the allottee directly, through a lease or allotment cancellation, the correct first step is a representation for revision under Section 41(3) of the 1973 Act or Section 12 of the 1976 Act, since courts expect an allottee to have exhausted or at least attempted this administrative route before approaching the High Court by writ, and only then, if revision fails or the authority's delay in deciding it becomes itself unreasonable, should a writ petition under Article 226 follow, framed around the authority's own procedural failure wherever one genuinely exists, since that is the framing the Allahabad High Court has actually rewarded.

Where the developer has entered or appears headed for insolvency, the sequence changes again: a buyer should file a claim with the resolution professional within the timeline the public notice specifies, join or form a buyers' association to secure a voice on the committee of creditors, and treat any pending RERA order as evidence to support that claim rather than as a standalone enforcement route, since enforcement against an entity under moratorium is, in any event, suspended for the duration of the insolvency process.

Limitation and timing across the four routes

A RERA complaint under Section 31 does not carry a fixed limitation period written into the 2016 Act itself, and authorities have generally applied the residual three-year period under the Limitation Act, 1963 by analogy, running from the date the cause of action, typically the missed possession date, arises, though a continuing cause such as an unresolved delay can extend this in practice. An appeal to UP REAT against an Authority or adjudicating officer order must be filed within sixty days under Section 44, extendable where sufficient cause is shown, and a further appeal from the tribunal to the High Court on a substantial question of law follows the sixty-day period set by Section 58.

A revision petition against an authority's lease or allotment cancellation has no single statutory limitation fixed by the Acts themselves, but the state government in practice expects it to be filed promptly, and unexplained delay has counted against allottees in several of the decisions discussed above. A writ petition under Article 226 carries no fixed limitation period either, but is governed by the equitable doctrine of laches, under which unexplained delay of even a few years has been treated by the Allahabad High Court as sufficient reason to refuse relief on its own, independent of the merits.

A claim before the resolution professional in a developer's insolvency must be filed within the period the public announcement under the insolvency process specifies, ordinarily a matter of weeks from the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, and missing that window, while not always fatal given the tribunal's demonstrated willingness to admit late claims from homebuyers in appropriate cases, puts a buyer at serious risk of being excluded from the resolution plan's distribution altogether.

What remains unsettled

Several points in this area have not been resolved with the clarity the rest of the framework has. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a Noida or Greater Noida lease cancellation where the lease deed itself designates civil courts in Gautam Buddh Nagar as the forum for disputes has not been answered by a single authoritative ruling; the High Court's practice of granting relief where the authority's own conduct is at fault suggests the public-function character of the dispute is treated as controlling, but a purely contractual grievance framed without that element may fare differently, and the point has not been tested squarely enough to state with confidence.

Whether disputes between a promoter and an allottee under RERA are arbitrable where the agreement for sale contains an arbitration clause is also unsettled at the moment, and significantly so: the Bombay High Court has referred the question of whether all such disputes are inherently non-arbitrable to a larger bench, which means the position could shift materially depending on the outcome, and parties relying on an arbitration clause in a Noida or Greater Noida builder-buyer agreement should treat that route as contested rather than settled.

Finally, whether the state government's proposed fast-track registration route, allowing a no-objection certificate on payment of proportionate dues plus a surcharge rather than full settlement, has actually taken effect as policy across all three authorities, or remains at the proposal stage pending final government approval, could not be confirmed from the sources available at the time of writing, and any buyer or developer relying on it should verify its current status directly with the relevant authority before treating it as available relief.

The structural feature that makes Noida and Greater Noida different from most of India's housing market, leasehold land controlled by a public development authority sitting underneath a RERA-regulated construction contract, is also what makes disputes here harder to resolve through any single forum. A buyer's grievance is rarely only about the promoter or only about the authority, and the routes available, RERA complaint, appeal to UP REAT, revision before the state government, writ petition to the Allahabad High Court, and a claim in insolvency where the developer has failed altogether, each answer a different slice of the problem and carry their own timelines and preconditions.

The decisions reviewed here show courts and tribunals drawing a reasonably stable, if fact-specific, line: relief follows a party, whether allottee or developer, whose own conduct has been reasonably diligent, and is withheld from a party whose own default caused the dispute, whichever side of the authority's counter that party happens to sit on. Getting ahead of a dispute in this market means identifying early which side of that line a given case falls on, and choosing the forum that actually has power to grant the relief the facts support.

Frequently Asked Questions

References & Further Reading

The provisions, rulings and official documents below were relied on for this article, which states the law as on 26 October 2026. The position can change with amendments, rules and later decisions, so check the current text before acting on any of it.

1. Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, Sections 7 and 12
2. Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, Section 41(3)
3. Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development (Amendment) Act, 2022
4. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Sections 18, 20, 31, 43(5), 44, 58 and 79
5. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Sections 5(8)(f) and 14
6. Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and others, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 2008, decided 9 July 2008
7. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and others v. 24 Oranges Lab LLP and others, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 5799 of 2021, decided 21 September 2021
8. Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited v. State of U.P., Supreme Court of India, 2021
9. Savita Sharma v. State of U.P. and two others, Allahabad High Court, 2025
10. Pawan Hans Limited v. State of U.P. and others, Allahabad High Court (writ petition concerning Noida Sector 1 institutional plot cancellation)
11. M/s Kinetic Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and another, Allahabad High Court, 2025
12. Sunworld City allotment matter, Allahabad High Court judgment dated 13 August 2026, concerning Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority
13. Antriksh Developers v. Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Allahabad High Court, on delay interest after acceptance of possession
14. Rensar Infra RERA arbitrability reference, Bombay High Court, on whether promoter-allottee RERA disputes are inherently non-arbitrable
15. NCLT Mumbai, Spenta Enclave matter, on extinguishment of individual RERA refund claims by an approved resolution plan
16. Uttar Pradesh government stalled real estate projects rehabilitation policy, approved December 2023, following recommendations of the committee headed by Amitabh Kant
17. Uttar Pradesh government order on building regulations for industrial development authorities, October 2026, citing Sections 9(2), 12 and 19(2) of the 1976 Act

Related reading on this site

• Rera complaint filing process guide
• Rerat appeal procedure guide
• Rera vs civil court jurisdiction guide
• Rera section 18 delay interest calculation guide
• Rera recovery certificate enforcement guide
• Ibc homebuyers financial creditors section 5 8 f guide
• Joint development agreement real estate tax guide
• Rera ten years india homebuyer remedies article
• Rensar infra rera disputes arbitrability larger bench bombay hc
• Nclt mumbai spenta enclave rera refund resolution plan