By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 22 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
A buyer steps into an under-construction project not by booking directly with the developer, but by purchasing the unit from someone who booked it years earlier. The original allottee signed the builder-buyer agreement, paid the early instalments, and then, for reasons of their own, decided to exit and transfer the booking. The new buyer pays the balance, gets an endorsement from the builder recognising the transfer, and settles in to wait for possession, assuming the legal position is the same as if they had booked the flat themselves.
When the project runs late and the buyer wants to go to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for a refund or delay compensation, the developer's first line of defence is often that this buyer is not really an allottee at all, just a private transferee of someone else's contract, with none of the statutory rights the original allottee had. That argument has been tested at the Supreme Court, and it does not succeed in the way developers often hope.
What RERA actually means by 'allottee'
Section 2(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 defines an allottee broadly. It covers the person to whom a plot, apartment or building has been allotted, sold, whether as freehold or leasehold, or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and it specifically includes a person who later acquires that allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise, apart from a person to whom the unit is given on rent. The definition does not confine the term to whoever first signed the agreement with the builder.
This matters because much of RERA's machinery, the right to a refund with interest under Section 18 if possession is delayed, the right to information about the project, and the right to approach the Authority at all, is framed around the status of being an allottee. If a subsequent buyer were treated as something less than an allottee, most of the statutory protection RERA was built to provide would simply not reach a very large share of ordinary homebuyers, since resale of under-construction units during a long project timeline is common rather than exceptional.
Laureate Buildwell v. Charanjeet Singh: what the Supreme Court actually decided
The Supreme Court addressed this question directly in M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh, decided on 22 July 2021. The respondent had not booked the flat himself. He purchased it from the original allottee, who had asked the builder to transfer the unit in his favour after possession was promised within a stated time and never actually delivered. When the matter reached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and then the Supreme Court on the builder's appeal, the builder argued that a buyer who steps in after the original booking should not get the same remedy as the person who dealt with the builder from the start.
The Court rejected that argument and held that a subsequent purchaser who steps into the shoes of the original allottee has the same rights as that original allottee. In doing so, the bench of Lalit, Gupta and Bhat, JJ. said that two earlier authorities the builder had relied on to argue for a narrower view, HUDA v. Raje Ram and Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes, were no longer good law on this point. The practical effect is that a developer cannot treat a resale buyer as having weaker rights purely because of how the buyer came to the flat.
Importantly, the bench was also careful to note that the precise relief available to a subsequent purchaser still depends on the facts of each case, rather than following automatically in every instance. A buyer's own conduct, how long after the original delay the purchase happened, and what the buyer actually knew about the project's status at the time of purchase, can all affect what a forum is prepared to order, even though the buyer's basic entitlement to claim is not in question.
Why the paperwork of the transfer still matters enormously
Laureate Buildwell settles the legal principle, but it does not excuse a buyer from making sure the transfer itself is properly documented. What actually establishes that a buyer has stepped into the original allottee's shoes is the builder's acknowledgment of the transfer, commonly an endorsement on the original agreement or a fresh nomination letter, together with proof that consideration was actually paid and that the original allottee validly requested the change.
State-level Real Estate Regulatory Authorities applying this principle have focused closely on exactly this kind of documentary record. In one Maharashtra authority decision, a complainant who had first paid money toward a unit was treated as an allottee because a registered agreement for sale was later executed, which the authority found crystallised the complainant's status from that point. Other decisions from the same authority have gone the other way where the person claiming to be an allottee was really a landowner under a development arrangement rather than someone who had paid consideration for a unit, and the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable on that basis.
A buyer who takes a resale flat on an informal nomination, without insisting on the builder's written acknowledgment, risks having to first fight a threshold argument about whether they are an allottee at all before the real dispute about delay or refund is even reached. Given how clearly Laureate Buildwell resolves the legal question, that threshold fight is usually avoidable with proper paperwork at the time of purchase, and should not be left until a complaint is actually filed.
Computing the delay and the interest when you bought midway through a project
A question that follows naturally from Laureate Buildwell is which date governs the calculation of delay and interest once a subsequent purchaser is recognised as an allottee. Since the buyer steps into the original allottee's position under the same agreement, the delay is generally measured against the possession date promised in that original agreement, not against the date the subsequent purchaser actually bought in. A builder cannot escape liability for a delay that had already begun before the resale simply because a new buyer only entered the picture partway through.
This is also where the fact-specific side of the Supreme Court's ruling becomes relevant. A buyer who purchased knowing the project was already badly delayed, and who negotiated a lower price reflecting that risk, may find a forum weighing that context when deciding the scale of relief, even while accepting that the buyer has standing to claim in the first place. None of this changes the basic entitlement; it affects how a forum exercises discretion on the amount and nature of relief once entitlement is established.
RERA or Consumer Forum: the choice is still available to a resale buyer
Because RERA's definition of allottee already includes a subsequent purchaser, nothing about buying a resale unit forces a buyer into one forum over another. The same choice between a RERA complaint and a consumer complaint before the District, State or National Commission that applies to an original allottee applies equally here, and a buyer should weigh the same practical factors, speed, the kind of relief sought, and whether a parallel consumer complaint on the same cause of action has already been filed, before choosing.
What a resale buyer should not assume is that going to a consumer forum somehow avoids having to prove the transfer was valid. Whichever forum is approached will still expect the buyer to establish allottee status through the same kind of paperwork discussed above, since the Laureate Buildwell principle about who counts as an allottee is a feature of the underlying real estate dispute, not of any one procedural route to raising it.
A practical checklist before buying a resale or under-construction unit
Before paying for a resale unit, ask the seller for the builder's written consent to the transfer, not merely the seller's own assurance that a transfer has happened informally. Insist on either an endorsement on the original builder-buyer agreement or a fresh tripartite document involving the builder, and keep a clear paper trail of the payment made to the original allottee as consideration for the transfer.
It is also worth checking the project's registration status and current completion timeline on the state RERA website before completing the purchase, since a buyer who later wants to rely on Laureate Buildwell for a delay claim will need to show the delay that had already accrued under the original agreement, and knowing that history before buying avoids surprises about how much of the claim predates the purchase itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a RERA complaint if I bought my flat from the original allottee rather than booking it myself?
Yes. The Supreme Court held in Laureate Buildwell v. Charanjeet Singh that a subsequent purchaser who steps into the shoes of the original allottee has the same rights as that allottee, and the statutory definition of allottee under Section 2(d) of RERA already covers a person who acquires the allotment by transfer.
What documents do I need to prove I am an allottee if I bought a resale unit?
The builder's written acknowledgment of the transfer is central, usually an endorsement on the original agreement or a fresh nomination document, along with proof of the consideration paid for the transfer. Without this, a developer can raise a threshold objection that delays the real dispute.
From which date is delay compensation calculated if I bought the flat midway through the project?
Generally from the possession date promised in the original agreement between the builder and the original allottee, since the subsequent purchaser steps into that same agreement. The forum may still weigh what the buyer knew about the delay at the time of purchase when deciding the scale of relief.
Does the Laureate Buildwell ruling guarantee I will get the same relief as the original allottee would have?
It establishes that you have the same right to claim, not an automatic guarantee of identical relief in every case. The Supreme Court noted that the actual relief available to a subsequent purchaser still depends on the facts, including the buyer's own conduct and circumstances.
References & Further Reading
The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Sections 2(d) and 18
- M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 7042 of 2019, Supreme Court of India, decided 22 July 2021, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 479
- HUDA v. Raje Ram, and Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., both discussed and distinguished in Laureate Buildwell
- Raajyam Realty LLP v. Radhika Ganatra, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority