Archive · 16 Sep 2026
Karnataka Tribunal Says Landless Society Is Not RERA Promoter
A group of BSNL employees formed a housing society to help members obtain homes or plots.
One member paid ₹7,66,800 for a proposed site near Madhavanagara.
The site was not given to him, and he said his money was not returned.
He complained to Karnataka RERA under the real estate law.
The society said it had not bought land or started a real estate project.
Karnataka RERA dismissed the complaint.
The appellate tribunal agreed with the society.
It said the society was not a legal “Promoter” and the member was not a legal “Allottee” under RERA.
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ruled that a housing society without land or a real estate project was not a RERA “Promoter.”
The appellant, a former BSNL employee, paid ₹7,66,800 in 2013 and 2014 for a proposed Madhavanagara Phase-II site.
The promised site was neither registered in the appellant’s name nor was the money refunded, according to the complaint.
Karnataka RERA dismissed the complaint, and the appellant challenged that decision before the appellate tribunal.
The tribunal said the absence of a promoter and project also meant the appellant could not be treated as a RERA “Allottee.”
- Who
- The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, BSNL Employees Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., and a former BSNL employee who was a society member.
- What
- The tribunal ruled that a housing society with no acquired land or existing project was not a RERA “Promoter,” making the complaint non-maintainable under RERA.
- When
- The appellant made payments during 2013 and 2014; the tribunal’s ruling followed Karnataka RERA’s dismissal of the complaint.
- Where
- The dispute concerned the proposed BSNL Madhavanagara Project Phase-II, off Nelamangala Road, in Karnataka.
- Why
- The society had not acquired land for development and no real estate project existed, so the tribunal found no promoter or allottee relationship under RERA.
Appellant’s Position
Society’s Position
Refund and RERA relief
Appellant’s Position
The appellant argued that the project remained incomplete and that Section 18 of RERA entitled him to recovery of his payment, interest, and compensation.
Society’s Position
The society argued that RERA had no jurisdiction because no registered real estate project existed and the payments were not for a specific plot.
Existence of a promoter relationship
Appellant’s Position
The appellant treated his payment for the proposed site as sufficient to seek relief under RERA.
Society’s Position
The society said it had not acquired land, executed an agreement for sale, or issued allotment letters, so it was not a “Promoter” and the appellant was not an “Allottee”.
- Tribunal
- Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
- Society
- BSNL Employees Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
- Amount paid
- ₹7,66,800
- Payment period
- 2013 and 2014
- Proposed project
- BSNL Madhavanagara Project Phase-II, off Nelamangala Road
- Ruling
- A society without acquired development land or an existing project is not a RERA “Promoter.”
- Related provision
- Section 18 of RERA provides remedies to an allottee when a promoter fails to complete a project or hand over possession under an agreement for sale.