In a significant ruling on jurisdiction, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint filed by a resident of a neighbouring housing project against Impulse Buildcon, citing lack of locus standi as the complainant was not an allottee in the respondent’s project.
The final order was passed by Member II, Shri. Ravindra Deshpande on 14th May 2026 in Complaint No. CC005000000116897.
Background of the Dispute
The complaint was filed on 6th April 2022 by Mr. Sreenivasarao Koraganti, an advocate and resident of “Impact Imperial” (RERA Registration No. P52100008652), against Impulse Buildcon’s project “Impulse Residency” bearing RERA Registration No. P52100006791, located at Survey No. 286/1D, Lohegaon, Pune.
The core grievance of the complainant was that the developer was allegedly carrying out residential construction on a 15% statutory amenities space admeasuring 388.56 sq. mtrs., which was originally reserved in the layout approved by the District Collector, Pune in 2014. According to the complainant, this area was meant to be maintained permanently as public amenities/garden and could not be converted for residential use.
Mr. Koraganti argued that both projects (Impact Imperial and Impulse Residency) fall under the same survey number and that the amenities spaces were intentionally kept contiguous to function as a larger public open space. He claimed that construction on this reserved area violated the original sanctioned layout, undertakings given to the Collector, and provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2017.
He sought multiple reliefs including:
- Permanent restraint on further construction on the amenities space
- Restraint on creation of third-party rights
- Directions to hand over the area to Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for public garden use
- Demolition of alleged illegal construction
Respondent’s Stand
Impulse Buildcon strongly opposed the complaint, arguing that it was misconceived and not maintainable. The developer pointed out that the revised plans were duly approved by the competent authority in 2020, and the project was being developed as per sanctioned permissions. They also raised a preliminary objection that the complaint did not conform to the prescribed format under MahaRERA rules.
MahaRERA’s Ruling: No Locus Standi
After considering pleadings from both sides, MahaRERA rejected the complaint as not maintainable.
The Authority observed two key points:
- The complainant is not an allottee in Impulse Buildcon’s project. He is a resident of a separate adjoining project and has no Agreement for Sale or contractual relationship with the respondent.
- The dispute primarily concerns planning permissions, validity of revised sanctioned plans, and utilisation of amenities space — matters that fall under the jurisdiction of planning authorities like PMC and the Collector, rather than RERA.
MahaRERA held that such complex issues involving planning laws cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the RERA Act. The Authority further noted that only allottees of the project or persons with direct enforceable rights under RERA would typically have standing to raise such grievances.
Section 31 of RERA vs MahaRERA’s Interpretation
Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 states that “any aggrieved person” may file a complaint with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for any alleged violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules and regulations made thereunder.
While the section uses broad language allowing any aggrieved person (not limited to allottees) to approach RERA, MahaRERA in this case took a narrow and practical view. The Authority ruled that even if the complainant claims to be aggrieved as a neighbour, he still lacks locus standi because:
- There is no privity of contract with the promoter.
- The reliefs sought (declaration of construction as illegal and handing over of land) fall outside RERA’s core mandate of protecting homebuyers/allottees.
This order reinforces the trend in MahaRERA where complaints filed by third parties or neighbours on planning and open space issues are often dismissed on grounds of maintainability.
The complaint has been disposed of with no order as to costs.
Also Read: MahaRERA Rejects Builder’s Deregistration Bid Over Massive Booking Discrepancies
