In a review application decided on July 9, 2026, MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik rejected an application filed by Anand Mangal Association of Allottees against Samarth Krupa Developer in connection with the project registered under MahaRERA No. P51800008706.

The review application arose out of an original complaint (CC006000000079416), in which MahaRERA had already passed a final order on May 18, 2022. Nearly four years later, the association approached the Authority seeking to reopen the matter.

Why did the association seek a review?

The association argued that the 2022 order was arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It contended that MahaRERA had failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case, granted inadequate relief and should have imposed stricter penalties on the developer.

The association also cited subsequent developments, including the formation of the cooperative housing society and the developer’s alleged failure to comply with MahaRERA’s earlier directions. According to the association, the present managing committee became aware of the earlier proceedings only at a later stage, and therefore the delay in filing the review application deserved to be condoned.

Builder opposed the review

The developer opposed the application on several grounds.

It argued that the review application had been filed nearly four years after the original order, whereas MahaRERA regulations prescribe a limitation period of only 45 days for filing a review.

The developer further submitted that the association was attempting to seek fresh reliefs such as refund, compensation, interest and penalties, which are beyond the limited scope of review proceedings. According to the developer, all issues had already been adjudicated in the original complaint and the review application was merely an attempt to reopen a concluded dispute.

What does the law say?

MahaRERA examined Regulation 36 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2017, which governs review applications.

The regulation permits a review only under limited circumstances, such as:

• Discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

• An error apparent on the face of the record.

• Any other sufficient legal reason.

Importantly, such a review application must ordinarily be filed within 45 days from the date of the original order.

Why did MahaRERA reject the review?

The Authority found multiple reasons for rejecting the application.

First, the review application suffered from an extraordinary delay. The original order was passed on May 18, 2022, while the review application was filed only on May 13, 2026—almost four years later. This was far beyond the prescribed limitation period of 45 days.

Second, MahaRERA rejected the association’s explanation that the current committee members were unaware of the earlier proceedings. The Authority noted that the society itself had participated in the original proceedings through its authorised representatives and the records clearly established that the association had knowledge of the case. A change in office bearers could not erase the legal knowledge of the society.

Third, the Authority found that the review application did not disclose any new evidence or previously unavailable documents that could justify reopening the matter.

Fourth, MahaRERA observed that the application failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the earlier order. Instead, it simply sought reconsideration of issues that had already been decided.

Finally, the Authority held that the applicant was attempting to re-argue the merits of the original complaint, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction.

Why didn’t the case go against the builder?

A reading of the order makes it clear that MahaRERA did not examine whether the builder had complied with the earlier directions or whether the original decision was right or wrong.

Instead, the review application failed at the threshold because it did not satisfy the legal requirements necessary for a review.

In other words, the developer did not “win” because MahaRERA concluded there was no violation on merits. Rather, the review itself was found to be legally not maintainable due to procedural defects.

This distinction is important. A review is not an appeal. It is a limited remedy meant only to correct obvious errors or consider genuinely new evidence. It cannot be used to seek a second hearing simply because a party is unhappy with the outcome.

Lessons for homebuyers and housing societies

The order offers several practical lessons for apartment owners, resident welfare associations and cooperative housing societies.

If a party believes a MahaRERA order contains a legal error, prompt action is essential. Waiting for years can extinguish the right to seek a review.

Societies should also maintain proper records during committee transitions. A newly elected managing committee cannot ordinarily claim ignorance of litigation conducted by previous office bearers.

Most importantly, parties should understand the difference between a review and an appeal. A review has a very narrow scope. If the grievance is against the correctness of the decision itself, the appropriate legal remedy may lie before the appellate forum rather than by seeking to reopen the same proceedings through a review application.

The ruling reinforces that procedural compliance is as important as substantive rights. Even if a party believes it has a genuine grievance, failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for a review can result in the case being dismissed without the Authority examining the underlying dispute.

Also Read: Mumbai homebuyer sentiment 2025

The post Unhappy With a MahaRERA Order? Avoid These Costly Mistakes or Your Review May Be Rejected appeared first on Square Feat India.