India Explained
ImplementedBJPNarendra Modi

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)

RERA requires registration of real estate projects with State regulators, sets promoter obligations and complaint timelines. Over 1.5 lakh projects were registered by September 2025; implementation varies by State.

Real estate regulation · Idea originated under Manmohan Singh (2009)

Facts

  • The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 2013 was introduced under the Manmohan Singh government; the Rajya Sabha passed the 2016 version on 10 March 2016 and the Lok Sabha on 15 March 2016 [1].
  • The Act (No. 16 of 2016) took effect for 61 of 92 sections on 1 May 2016 and for the remaining 31 sections on 1 May 2017 [2].
  • Projects must register with a State Real Estate Regulatory Authority before launch; non-registration can attract a penalty of up to 10% of estimated project cost, and non-compliance with orders can bring up to three years' imprisonment, a further fine up to 10% of cost, or both [2].
  • Agents must register; prices are quoted on carpet area; authorities and tribunals are to dispose of complaints within 60 days [2].
  • On 11 November 2021 the Supreme Court, in Newtech Promoters and Developers v. State of U.P., held that the Act applies to ongoing projects, upheld the pre-deposit condition for promoters' appeals, and held the Regulatory Authority responsible for refund and interest complaints [3][4].
  • As of 1 September 2025, more than 1.51 lakh projects and 1.06 lakh agents were registered and more than 1.47 lakh complaints disposed; all States and UTs except Nagaland had notified rules [5].
  • In April 2022 MoHUA data showed 78,494 projects registered and 88,864 complaints disposed; Maharashtra held 43.6% of registered projects, and Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra accounted for 73% of disposed complaints [6].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The Act's stated aims are to regulate and promote the real estate sector, protect consumers and provide speedy dispute redressal through a regulator and appellate tribunal [2].
  • The Act's long title states the further aims of ensuring the sale of plots, apartments or buildings in an efficient and transparent manner and of establishing an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and an Appellate Tribunal; PRS describes the 2013 Bill as regulating transactions between buyers and promoters, with project details uploaded on registration and 70% of buyers' money held in a separate project account [1][2].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • PRS noted that land is a State subject and Parliament's competence could be questioned (the Bill could be justified as regulation of contracts and property transfer on the Concurrent List) [1].
  • PRS noted that a requirement to keep 70% of buyers' money in a separate project account may leave funds unused where costs are lower, which could require other financing and raise project costs [1].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • A statutory registration and complaint framework now exists in nearly all States.More than 1.51 lakh projects registered and 1.47 lakh complaints disposed as of 1 September 2025 [5].
  • The Supreme Court upheld core features, strengthening enforceability.Newtech (2021): retrospective application to ongoing projects, pre-deposit requirement not onerous, Regulatory Authority competent on refunds [3][4].

Concerns (2)

  • Uneven implementation across States, with data limits.Rules were not notified in several States as of July 2019, and the Act faces constitutional challenges in five north-eastern States [2]; MoHUA publishes disposed but not pending or received complaints [6].
  • Coverage is incomplete and a few States account for most activity.Many projects are exempt, and developers in Delhi are reported to split projects to avoid registration; Maharashtra had 43.6% of registrations [6].

Evidence points

+12.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+12 to +13
range between the two scorers' totals
Medium confidence
scorers agree within 1 point on every criterion
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +3.0A +3B +3
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean +2.0A +2B +2
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +2.5A +2B +3
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +2.5A +3B +2
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +2.5A +3B +2

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Over 1.5 lakh projects registered and 1.47 lakh complaints disposed, with core features upheld by the Supreme Court, though implementation is uneven across States.

Scorer B. Over 1.5 lakh projects registered and core provisions upheld by the Supreme Court, though implementation is uneven across States.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Before 2016 real estate was governed by differing State laws and consumer courts; PRS notes the Bill overrides conflicting State provisions.
Lag before outcomes show
4 years
Shocks considered
2016-demonetisation, 2017-gst-rollout, 2020-covid
Uncertainty
Medium confidence. Scorer totals are +13 and +12. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

RERA moved homebuyer protection from consumer courts alone to a registered-project model with State regulators. The 2013 Bill was reworked after a Standing Committee review and passed in March 2016. The Act covers registration, disclosure, carpet-area pricing, deposit of buyers’ funds in a separate account and time-bound complaints.

Supporters point to the number of registrations and complaints disposed and to the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment. Concerns raised include different pace of implementation across States, exemptions for smaller or ongoing projects, and limited public data on pending cases. Delivery of possession and price outcomes are not measured in the sources used here, so conclusions on whether delays fell are not drawn.

The exact deposit percentage in the final Act and the project-size exemption thresholds were not verified from the sources opened; the 70% figure above is from PRS’s description of the Bill.

Sources

  3. Newtech Promoters and Developers v. State of U.P. - note on judgment
    K&S Partners (summary of Supreme Court judgment)Media
  5. Minutes of the 5th Central Advisory Council meeting under RERA
    Ministry of Housing and Urban AffairsOfficial data
  6. Five years of RERA: What does the data show?
    Citizen Matters (analysis of MoHUA data)Media

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • RepealedINCHousing & Urban

    Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

    The 1976 Act capped vacant urban land holdings and allowed State acquisition of the excess. Little of the estimated excess was taken into possession, and Parliament enacted a repeal framework in 1999.

    Evidence points −11.0 (range −11.0 to −11.0)