Can a RERA Officer Order Your Refund? The Bombay High Court Has an Answer

Imagine you've booked your dream home. You paid almost the entire amount, but the builder fails to deliver the project as promised. Naturally, you approach RERA seeking a refund.

RERA hears your case, an Adjudicating Officer orders the builder to refund your money with interest, and you think the battle is over.

But what if the builder later says:

"The officer who ordered the refund didn't even have the power to do so!"

This is exactly the issue the Bombay High Court recently had to decide in Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., and its answer is reassuring for thousands of homebuyers.

What happened?

A homebuyer had paid around ₹1.36 crore for a flat. When the builder failed to meet its obligations, the buyer approached MahaRERA seeking a refund.

The Adjudicating Officer directed the builder to refund the money along with interest.

Interestingly, the builder did not challenge this order before the appellate authority, even though the law gave it an opportunity to do so.

Years later, when recovery proceedings started, the builder approached the Bombay High Court with a technical argument.

It claimed that the Adjudicating Officer never had the authority to pass a refund order in the first place. Therefore, according to the builder, the entire order should be treated as invalid.

Why did the builder make this argument?

The builder relied on an earlier Supreme Court judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

According to the builder, the Supreme Court had said that refund orders can only be passed by the RERA Authority and not by an Adjudicating Officer.

If that argument had succeeded, many refund orders passed over the years could have become vulnerable to challenge.

So, what did the Bombay High Court say?

The Court disagreed with the builder.

It explained that the builder had misunderstood what the Supreme Court had actually decided.

The earlier Supreme Court case was dealing with a different question. It never examined whether the RERA Authority could delegate its refund powers to an Adjudicating Officer.

The Bombay High Court pointed out that Section 81 of the RERA Act specifically allows the Authority to delegate many of its powers to its officers. Since an Adjudicating Officer is also an officer under RERA, there is nothing illegal in assigning refund matters to that officer.

Simply put, the Court said:

The law allows the RERA Authority to authorise an Adjudicating Officer to decide refund cases.

Why does this make sense?

The Court also looked at the issue from a practical perspective.

A refund case usually involves straightforward questions:

• How much money did the buyer pay?

• Was the builder supposed to hand over possession?

• Has the builder failed to do so?

• Is the buyer entitled to withdraw?

Most of these questions can be answered by looking at documents such as the agreement, payment receipts and project records.

On the other hand, deciding compensation is much more complicated. It may involve examining evidence, assessing losses and conducting a detailed inquiry.

The Court observed that if an Adjudicating Officer is qualified to decide these more complex compensation disputes, there is no reason why that officer cannot also decide a comparatively simpler refund claim when the law permits it.

The builder made another mistake

Even apart from the legal issue, the Court noticed something important.

The builder had never appealed against the original refund order.

Instead, it waited for years.

Only when recovery proceedings started did it suddenly argue that the order was invalid.

The Court refused to entertain this delayed challenge.

Courts generally expect parties to challenge orders within the time provided by law. Once an order becomes final, it cannot ordinarily be reopened years later simply because someone discovers a new legal argument.

Why should homebuyers care?

This judgment is good news for homebuyers because it prevents builders from delaying refunds through technical objections.

If the Court had accepted the builder's argument, countless completed RERA cases could have been dragged back into litigation, causing more uncertainty and delay.

Instead, the Bombay High Court has reinforced the basic purpose of RERA to provide quick, effective and meaningful relief to homebuyers.

Case: Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 12121 of 2024, decided by the Bombay High Court on 7 April 2026.