Registration alone can’t be measure of success: Homebuyers forum to PM Modi on 10 years of RERA

RERA stands for the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The article describes it as a law intended to regulate projects, improve disclosures and protect homebuyers. Its regulatory authority was set up in 2016. Registration matters because it places projects inside a formal framework rather than leaving buyers with only private promises.

According to FPCE, proper registration should involve checking important material before approval. This includes project documents, sanctioned plans, promised amenities, promoter declarations and proposed agreements for sale. The forum says projects have sometimes been registered without adequate scrutiny of these items.

RERA has brought many projects into a registration system, but the forum says registration alone is not success. Buyers still face delays, one-sided agreements and difficulties enforcing orders. The article does not provide a complete statutory checklist, but it makes clear that FPCE wants registration to involve meaningful verification, not merely a project registration number.

After roughly ten years, FPCE credits RERA with bringing a large number of projects into a registration framework. It also recognises that the law introduced important disclosure requirements. These changes created a visible regulatory structure for projects and gave buyers more information than before.

The forum says those achievements do not prove that RERA is working effectively. It reports continuing concerns about misuse of homebuyers’ money, one-sided builder-buyer agreements and delayed projects. It also says projects may be registered without proper scrutiny of documents, plans, amenities, promoter declarations or proposed sale agreements.

FPCE’s central criticism is that buyers still struggle to obtain effective remedies. Refund and compensation orders can take years to reach them. The forum therefore says RERA’s objectives are far from achieved and wants a mandate overhaul, with promotion and buyer protection handled by separate government bodies.

FPCE estimates that delayed real-estate projects have trapped approximately Rs. 12.44 lakh crore of homebuyers’ money. The figure comes from a conservative estimate based on the Ministry’s own RERA data. It shows that the problem extends well beyond isolated disputes between individual buyers and builders.

The forum says the blocked money affects about 27.6 lakh families. These households have invested savings in homes that remain delayed. Their money is therefore tied up while possession remains uncertain. The article connects the estimate to projects that have not been completed on time.

FPCE says the scale creates wider economic consequences. It identifies household savings, financial institutions, consumption, employment, investment and confidence in the sector as areas affected when capital remains blocked. The figure is presented as about 3.8% of India’s annual GDP, making delayed projects a broad economic concern.

When projects are delayed, homebuyers may remain without the completed homes for which they invested their lifetime savings. Their money stays blocked, and possession remains unresolved. FPCE says this is not merely a personal inconvenience because millions of families and a large amount of capital may be affected.

The problem continues even when a buyer obtains a favourable RERA order. The forum says refunds or compensation ordered after prolonged proceedings can take years to be transferred. In its words, justice is not delivered merely because an order has been passed. An order therefore does not automatically produce money or a completed home.

FPCE links these delays to wider effects on household savings, financial institutions, consumption, employment, investment and confidence in the sector. It wants effective remedies, stronger compliance checks and better enforcement. Without those changes, registration and disclosure may provide little practical relief to affected buyers.

FPCE identifies a structural conflict in giving the Real Estate Regulatory Authority two roles. The authority is expected to promote the real-estate sector while also protecting homebuyers. Promotion may focus on expanding activity and registrations, whereas protection requires close scrutiny, enforcement and remedies for violations.

The forum points to continuing problems as evidence that the balance is not working. Projects may be registered without adequate checks, agreements may remain one-sided, and buyers may wait years for refunds or compensation. It also says there is no robust review of a promoter’s outstanding liabilities, unexecuted orders or past compliance before a new project is registered.

FPCE therefore wants the mandate changed. It proposes that the Housing Ministry continue promoting the sector, while another department takes sole responsibility for buyer protection. The aim is to give enforcement and homebuyer interests a clearer institutional priority, rather than combining them with sector promotion.

The forum proposes dividing RERA-related responsibilities between two government departments. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs would continue looking after promotion of the real-estate sector. The Department of Consumer Affairs would receive sole responsibility for protecting homebuyers’ interests.

This proposal responds to FPCE’s concern that one regulatory authority currently has competing responsibilities. The same authority is expected to encourage the sector and address violations affecting buyers. FPCE believes separating these functions would make protection, enforcement and remedies more clearly accountable.

The proposed arrangement would not simply focus on registering more projects. It would also address one-sided agreements, weak document scrutiny, delayed refunds and compensation, and promoters’ outstanding liabilities. The article presents the proposal as a mandate overhaul. It does not state whether the government has accepted it or describe any implementation timetable.

Housing regulation matters because a homebuyer may commit lifetime savings before receiving a completed home. Disclosures help reveal what a project promises, while contract review can expose one-sided builder-buyer terms. Financial checks matter because the forum says homebuyers’ money can remain trapped in delayed projects.

The article gives concrete gaps. FPCE says projects have been registered without proper scrutiny of documents, sanctioned plans, amenities, promoter declarations or proposed sale agreements. It also says there is no robust check of outstanding liabilities, unexecuted orders or a promoter’s past compliance before another project is registered.

Enforcement completes the system. A refund or compensation order has little practical value if buyers wait years for payment. FPCE says registration and disclosure alone cannot measure success while violations continue and remedies remain difficult. Effective regulation therefore requires accurate project information, fair agreements, financial responsibility and enforceable decisions.