Before analyzing the research findings, a brief discussion of RERDA’s 2016 provisions concerning exclusively for the benefit of homebuyers is imperative. The lack of standardization was a limitation on the stable and organized development of the industry. The homebuyers could not secure complete information or enforce accountability against developers and builders without a legally tenable mechanism; justice was unreachable. The existing Consumer Protection Act, 1986[1] was available as a forum to redress such grievances; the remedy is only curative and inadequate to address all the buyers' and promoters' concerns. The homebuyers and other affected stakeholders emphasized and raised concerns in various forums to regulate the sector with a particular act. Since the Act has been in force with effect since May 2016, it is necessary to look at the essential provisions of the Act relevant to the protection of homebuyers' interests. The analysis of homebuyer-related sections and implementation timelines, as shown in Table A1, suggests that the Act is firm to ensure security, transparency, fairness, quality, and authorization.
4.1 Impediments in the Implementation of RERDA, 2016
The initial period of the post-implementation of RERDA, 2016, found a slump pin in the sector. The builders and agents were unaware of the various provisions of the Act and its implications. Several litigations and court cases arose, questioning the constitutional validity of the Act. Detailed discussions on legal validity are as follows:
4.1.1 Constitutional validity
RERA's first hurdle was its constitutional validity, as alleged by the real estate market players such as promoters. They challenged the validity and application of the Act in various courts, including the Supreme Court of India and the Apex Court. The Apex Court, on 4 September 2017, transferred all related petitions with direction to the High Court of Bombay (Court) to take up the Writ Petitions together, directed to hear the cases expeditiously to dispose of within two months.[2] Therefore, the Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India and others[3] dealt with the constitutional validity of various provisions of RERDA, 2016. The submitted fact here is that the Act has provided registration of the ongoing project but executed it before registration under RERA. In that sense, the provisions have retroactive application. The Court held that the Act would apply after getting the project registered.
Moreover, the promoter can prescribe a new time limit to complete the remaining development work while registering the project. Therefore, the application of the Act is prospective. Regarding constitutional validity, the Court affirmed that the parliament is responsible for enacting a law that affects the events of the preceding time. Thus, an enactment cannot be struck down merely by saying that it is arbitrary and unreasonable unless it establishes constitutional infirmity.
The Court observed that RERA provisions did not violate the Indian Constitution while striking down the provisions on its operational grounds is retroactive. Furthermore, the payment of interest provision is not punitive but compensatory to the homebuyers due to project delay. Moreover, the provisions relating to penalties are not retrospective in their operation, as they cover the events taking place and the instances occurring after the registration of the project.
Finally, on 6 December 2017, the Court held that relevant RERDA, 2016, is legal and constitutionally valid. Furthermore, it clarified that there would be no distortion or structural abuse of stakeholders' power to ensure the real estate industry's safety and transparency. The Court also noticed that real estate authorities would discharge administrative and quasi-judicial functions. As such, the Court clarified that there is no need for a judicial person to be a member of the real estate authority. In contrast, other stakeholders believed that the appointment of a judicial member to the appellate Tribunal was necessary because of the nature of the operation.[4]
4.1.2 Other impediments
Other implementation issues include inadequate infrastructure and workforce to address the many complaints filed with the relevant state's RERA on time. There are delays in recruiting RERA members in some states, while a fully equipped office with full administrative support and infrastructure does not exist in others. Work moves on a makeshift basis. Therefore, RERA's workforce and support infrastructure are inadequate to deal with many consumer complaints filed with the agency.[5] After over four years of implementation, RERA has yet to prove its capability to prevent corruption/malpractices. When authorities conspire with players, a RERA cannot intervene, and the holes get more prominent. [6]
Execution of RERA orders is another challenging issue for authorities and homebuyers. Authorities failed to execute several such orders favoring homebuyers due to some in-built constraints. According to RERDA, 2016, once the authority passes an order, it must be performed within a fixed timeline. Any penalty/compensation under the Act due to promoters or real estate agents is recoverable as arrears of land revenue.[7] RERA has no authority to issue directives to any agency; hence, it becomes challenging to ensure that the relevant department/authority takes proper steps. Pinning their hopes on RERA, several homebuyers were trapped in dud projects. Four years later, it is still inadequately implemented in most states, causing dissatisfaction among homebuyers. Most of its orders face execution problems in states where RERA is up and running and solving cases.[8] To address this issue, the RERA authorities of all states have agreed that RERA can recover arrears from penalties or unpaid fees by issuing a recovery warrant against the defaulter and placing it with the district administration. However, the problem remains.
4.2 Benefits of Homebuyers
The Act has defined RERA as resolving conflicts between builders and homebuyers faster and time-bound. Homebuyers have the right to transparency in measurement, payment structure, completion time, and penalties for delays or legal issues. Besides, they need clarity on area measurements, refund claims, a speedy trial, and financial discipline. Table 3 summarizes of the benefits of RERA to buyers vis-à-vis other key players.
Table 3: Benefits of RERA
Industry
|
Buyers
|
Developers
|
Agents
|
- Governance and transparency
- Project efficiency and robust project delivery
- Standardization and quality
- Enhance confidence of investors
- Attract higher investments and PE funding
- Regulated Environment
|
- Significant buyers protection
- Quality products and timely delivery
- Balanced agreements and treatment
- Transparency – sale based on carpet area
- Safety of money and transparency on utilization
|
- Common and best practices
- Increase efficiency
- Consolidation of sector
- Corporate branding
- Higher investment
- Increase in organized funding
|
- Consolidation of sector (due to mandatory state registration)
- Increased transparency
- Increased efficiency
- Minimum litigation by adopting best practices
|
Source: Authors’ compilation
Further analysis of benefits reveals that dissatisfied buyers now have more options for speedier remedial actions with the REDA, 2016 and the IBC 2016 in operation. Regarding various legal options available to an aggrieved homebuyer for grievance redress (Table A2), the Act provides the choice to move to Consumer Court/NCLT or go to RERA lies with the homebuyers. However, since RERA is an exclusive act meant for real estate transactions and is mainly established to safeguard homebuyers' interests, a consumer's approach to the adjudicating officer in RERA is preferable. The Act candidly provides penal provisions for violations committed by the builders/agents under RERA against the homebuyers (Table A3). The penalty includes the revocation of registration or fine or imprisonment, depending on the nature of offenses committed.
4.3 Important of Judicial Decisions
Since the RERDA, 2016 came into force on 1 May 2017, the judiciary's role is crucial in defining and applying the Act's principles in disputes and conflicting views raised by the stakeholders. A brief analysis of the vital judicial precedents helps understand the judicial trend and the judiciary's mindset.
4.3.1 Power of authority of RERA and compensation
In Suresh Swamy v Larsen & Turbo Ltd[9], Maharashtra RERA awarded Swamy (homebuyer), interest for delayed delivery of the flat because Larsen & Turbo (promoter) was earning interest on Swamy’s investment but had failed to hand over possession of the property to him.
4.3.2 Power of other redress agencies
The Supreme Court of India clarified a dispute of jurisdiction issue in a recent verdict in M/S. Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni and Another, Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020[10], hinting that the availability of an alternative solution is no bar in entertaining a complaint under another Act, i.e., the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the dispute can fall under the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
4.3.3 Supreme Court cancels Amrapali's RERA license, lease deeds
On 23 July 2019, the Supreme Court of India directed the government to take stern measures against errant builders such as Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited[11], in which 45,000 homebuyers were involved, by canceling their lease deeds for illegalities and ensuring timely delivery of projects. The Court heavily slammed the Amrapali promoters for diverting millions of rupees of hard-earned money from 45,000 homebuyers to fund its promoters' extravagant lifestyles, such as buying fancy cars and villas. Candidly, the Court canceled its RERA license, leased deeds and handed over its unfinished projects to the National Building Construction Corporation. In addition, the Court ordered a money-laundering investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) into the allegations that the developer could have taken money in connection with banks and the authorities. In addition, the company would face an inquiry under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA probe) for the possible violation.
4.3.4 Homebuyers treated as financial creditors under the IBC
In a case filed by over 200 developers challenging the provision of section 2(d) of RERDA 2016 treating homebuyers as financial creditors, the Supreme Court of India ordered that the financial creditors status to homebuyers stands. The remedies available to them under various laws such as RERDA, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now 2019), and IBC are concurrent. In case of conflict, the IBC will prevail over other statutes.
4.3.5 Supreme Court upheld homebuyers’ right to pursue remedies in Consumer Court
The Supreme Court, in the judgement in M/S. Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni and Another, Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020[12] on 2 November 2020 held that homebuyers could approach consumer courts and RERA if a promoter fails to hand over a real estate project on time. The homebuyers can prefer consumer courts for compensation because of deficiency in service (delayed delivery) and invoke the RERA Act's relevant provisions for proceedings against the builder/promoter for contravening the Act. The Apex Court imposed a fine of fifty thousand rupees on the appellant Imperial Structures for the cost of litigation payable to the affected homebuyers. It also directed paying the penalty imposed by the NCDRC.
4.3.6 Indian Supreme Court orders more empowerment to the homebuyers
In the latest judgment in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP & Ors., Civil Appeal No(S). 6745- 6749 of 2021 and eight other Appeals Civil Appeal No(S). 6750-6757 of 2021[13] delivered on 11 November 2021, the Apex Court has recommended that the RERDA, 2016, be amended to protect the rights of homebuyers. The broad contours of the ruling are that RERDA's application is retroactive, and it encompasses all projects for which completion certificates were not granted when the Act was enacted. Before challenging any RERA judgement, the Court also made it essential for developers to deposit at least 30% of the penalty imposed by the regulator. The verdict may serve as a deterrent to such builders, who will now be required to deposit the entire amount plus interest as a condition of doing business. Furthermore, the Court determined that RERA has sole authority to order a refund of the sum, plus interest, direct interest payment for late delivery of possession, or a penalty and interest to the allottee. However, to speed up the procedure, the adjudicating body has the right to assess compensation and interest.
After the RERDA's implementation, homebuyers through the Forum for People's Collective Efforts (FPCE) and other organizations have emphasized the weakening of RERA restrictions in several states. Buyers will benefit from the judgement in many ways, including creating a unified regulatory framework for all projects and improved grievances. Buyers would enjoy a faster decision in cases where RERA has issued a penalty since builders will have to pay a predeposit before challenging an order. Regarding developers, the orders imply that developers must follow RERDA/RERA regulations and register projects in progress before enacting the Act if the relevant authority has not issued a completion certificate. In general, builders who have appealed RERA decisions in previous years will have to evaluate the circumstances they want to challenge the ruling.
The decision might force revisions to State Rules based on the Act.
The review of these six cases suggests that the Supreme Court of India's judgments, particularly on the Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited and the latest one, the Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited, have broader implications for the builders and lessons for central and state governments. The rulings have been a boost for homebuyers across the country. The Court is likely to bring any such favourable ruling depending on the need of the time.[14]
4.4 RERA: Implementation Status
Rules, infrastructure and grievance redress mechanism
The Act provides state governments notifying Rules and appointing the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) and Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) and hosting the specific website. Table 4 shows the Act’s implementation status in Indian states and union territories (UTs). Thirty-five out of 36 states and UTs (97%) reported their respective rules, including two newly established UTs in August 2019.[15] The Nagaland state is in the process of legislating its Rules. West Bengal is the only state in the country that did not follow RERADA, 2016; instead, it adopted its Act, West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act (WBHIRA), 2017.[16] According to reports, the reason is a political conflict between the center and the state.[17] Some homebuyers believed the Act conflicted with the RERDA (2016)'s provisions. Therefore, a group of homebuyers, the Forum for People's Collective Efforts (FPCE), had challenged this Act's validity in the Supreme Court[18], and it is now decided[19]. However, the Government of India advised the West Bengal government to notify the Rules in conformity with the RERA Act, 2016.
Table 4: Implementation status of the RERDA Act as of 11 September 2021.
Provision
|
States and Union Territories
|
Total
|
Regular
|
Interim
|
Under process
|
Rule Notification under RERDA
|
35
|
-
|
1
|
36
|
Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)
|
25
|
5
|
-
|
30*
|
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (AT)
|
22
|
6
|
7
|
35
|
Operational websites
|
27
|
-
|
3
|
30
|
Appointment of Adjudicating Officer
|
16
|
Note: * Haryana has two regulatory authorities
(Source: Authors’ compilation from information available in http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/RERA_Status_Tracker%20(11-09-2021).pdf)
To date, 30 states and UTs have established their regulatory authority, 25 being regular and five interims. Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Meghalaya and Sikkim notified their Rules while still setting up their regulatory authority. In the meantime, following the Supreme Court’s judgment, West Bengal has announced its Rules but has yet to establish its regulatory authority. In addition, 28 states/UTs have set up Tribunal-22 regular, and six are temporary. Five states have only a website format; no details are available. As of 11 September 2021, the total number of projects and agents registered under the Act was 68,900 and 53,995. The government report35 suggests that with the available infrastructure and mechanisms, 74,183 complaints drew the attention of the redress authorities and were disposed of across the country by the reporting date.
The inference from this development is that the progress and development in implementing the Act so far appear uneven.
4.4.2 State-level modifications to RERA
The review of RERA of all the states suggests that among the 34 states that have notified the Rules, nine states (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh) have understandably twisted the Rules, potentially making them more favorable to builders. These states have amended the provisions by excluding on-going projects from the purview of RERA, the penalty for compounding offenses and project delivery timing.
The dilution in the Rules suggests that builders can follow corrupt practices and harass homebuyers by delaying the project, investing buyers' hard-earned money elsewhere, increasing the chances of cost escalation and compromising quality. The possible reason for such dilution/modification is that RERA implementation is a state subject. Every state has the prerogative to change according to the prevailing conditions in the concerned state. In a few cases, political will-power and weak interstate relations work; the builders' lobby and regulatory capture are imminent.
Figure A1 depicts the implementation status of RERDA, 2016, in the Indian map.
4.5 Impact Analysis
4.5.1 Field investigation: homebuyers’ response
The homebuyers can redress their grievances through RERA, Consumer Court, NCLT or Bankruptcy Court. As a result, pre-and post-RERDA, 2016, homebuyers' options stalled in most cases relating to real estate languishing in the NCLT. In the process, several projects are delayed. The builders prefer RERA to be the first point for redressing the grievances. The developers' associations have advised the government to create an escalation mechanism, let RERA act and decide first. If aggrieved parties are unhappy, they can go to another available forum. People are going to RERA, NCLT, and the consumer forum today, which is unfair.[20] Therefore, developers and their associations have called for changes in the law. The recently enacted Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, to eliminate bottlenecks and streamline the corporate insolvency resolution process, would affect default builders while benefiting homebuyers. The new rule requires that at least 100 homebuyers in the project, or 10% of total homebuyers, whichever is less, collectively file a complaint with the NCLT [21] against the default builder. Apprehension is that since the individual buyer cannot go to NCLT, the new provision works against the homebuyers' interest.
The interaction with 540 homebuyers broadly reveals that a single aggrieved homebuyer has no voice or minimal voice against the concerned builder. The homebuyer faces difficulties out of fear of taking the defaulting developer to the appropriate legal forum. Most of the respondents (89%) supported this observation. The other problem that haunts them is that litigation resolution takes longer than stipulated and expected. Because lawyers handled the vast majority of cases, approximately 82% of respondents believed that the defendant's advocate(s) dragged the matter for convenience, resulting in an excessive delay in resolving the issue. Approximately 78% of respondents believed that builders invariably compromised the quality of their work and obtained compliance primarily through unethical means. After the Supreme Court dragged Amrapali for a severe violation, all homebuyers knew the real estate Act and had faith in it. Homebuyers' housing society management (association) improved significantly during the four-year post-implementation of the REDA, 2016. While confirming this development, 63% of the buyers expressed that builders possessed the upper hand because of their closeness to the power corridor. They believed that a concerted effort through their association to fight for their rights could lead to a more pleasant, hassle-free quality of living and bring peace of mind. Table A4 depicts the interview findings on the impact assessment of the Act on homebuyers.
The Appendix shows that approximately 80% of respondents who were either retired or service holders had invested their hard-earned savings in buying their dream home worth less than Rs 10 million, with a significant portion of the money coming from a housing loan from the office/bank. Arguably, this indicates that they belonged to the middle-class category who would afford otherwise. While 69% paid more than 50% of the cost, they suffered a delay in possession by more than 18 months. On the one hand, paying interest on a home loan and, on the other hand, staying in a rented house or paying the additional cost of retaining official accommodation or similar, delaying the possession of a dream home, pinches their pockets. Almost 72% of them were aggrieved because of the builder's delay in possession.
On the other hand, some homebuyers (28%) were loyal to the builder because of their family linkage, friendship and closeness as raw materials suppliers/service providers. Therefore, they preferred not to ventilate any grievances and compromise with the prevailing conditions. Of the aggrieved, 60% filed formal complaints, and 51% filed cases before the RERA (22% completed and 30% pending). Almost 83% of complainants pursued individual cases on their own. In terms of the effectiveness of the act's redress mechanism, 75% of homebuyers rated it as very good or good, indicating that they have faith in the system. However, the complainant homebuyers with favorable orders (23%) expressed concern about its timely implementation. To ensure the order's enforcement, nearly 62% of them had to take additional steps, such as filling out an execution application. The respondents' discussion reveals that the builder had resorted to harassment of homebuyers for some reason. They used oppressive measures such as unjustified penalties for late payment of installments, canceling the deed and selling it to others for a higher price, disconnecting essential services, and abusing and threatening people. Some specific cases narrated below are eyebrow-raising.
While attending 32 (apartment) society management meetings and holding in-depth interactions with respondents, a few terrifying and interesting facts surfaced that merit mention here to understand the nature and degree of builders' wrath and effect of RERDA, 2016. Respondent 247 narrated her horrifying story about the builder's repressive attitude and her helplessness. For nearly two decades, her woes began with local authorities, including the police, seeking protection from the State Consumer Dispute Redress Commission for the disconnection of power and water supply and the Registrar of Companies Office to collect information about the company's true identity. Respondent 91 was deeply disturbed by how the builder defrauded him by taking two advance checks at the booking time for encashing with prior notice. Nevertheless, he faced a check bouncing criminal case in a disputed installment payment issue. Respondent 510, who owns the unit with his wife, explained how his police complainant turned crime branch investigation took approximately two years and reported that the owner-occupied the apartment without a local authority's clearance certificate. Thus, the complaint was closed due to the misstatement of facts. The respondent's angst stemmed from the fact that the investigating officer had acted for extraneous reasons.[22] The story of respondent 98, who was instrumental in forming the owners' society to combat the mighty builder, suffered collectively due to factionalism among the owners-one group favoring the builder. The fact was that an encroachment case (construction beyond approved plan) of one apartment pending before the registering authority continued for more than ten years. Some flat (condominium) owners receive their units registered with the local authorities without a clearance/approval license from the appropriate agencies. Nevertheless, the builder moved freely with the landowner's irrevocable power of attorney. A respondent (221) who was the founder and President of the apartment society narrated how the builder harassed the office bearers of the flat owners’ (homebuyers) association just before implementing RERA because of legal recourse taken by the owners’ association collectively. The issues were that they had no right to information; seeking the property documents was unavailable. The legal right to compensation was absent if they did not receive the property as agreed upon, and in any case, the right to claim a refund from the builder was unthinkable. Seven homebuyers (Respondents 27, 129, 142, 310, 325, 411, 507) expressed how they proceeded to RERA court for grievance settlement without fear and confidence and expressed satisfaction about the development and outcome.
Regarding variations in respondents' opinions among eight regions/zones, Table A5, through the chi-square test, explains no significant differences in two factors, i.e. delay in delivery (χ2 6.745) and view on harassment (χ2 5.065) across the zones. Therefore, the hypothesis H0=f1=f2 is accepted, implying that the respondents' opinions follow a similar trend across the zones. However, the other factors, awareness of the Act (χ2 16.785) and view of the Act's effectiveness (χ2 22.96), are significant, resulting in the rejection of hypothesis H0=f3=f4. The variation is possible because implementing the Act and creating awareness are state subjects, and states have different approaches. However, the analysis gives a broader view of the Act's impact on people and society. The implication is that the Act has a variable impact on homebuyers across the country.
4.5.2 Impact of RERDA, 2016 on FDI in India and new policy measures
With its effect from 2018, India allows 100% foreign direct investments (FDI) with certain conditions through an automatic route for infrastructure on development projects that include the construction of residential premises, among others[23]. The essential terms and conditions are the development of a minimum of 20000 square meters of the floor area of the project, investment of US$ 5 million within six months of commencement of the project, exit permission after completion of the project, and compliance with regulatory authorities.[24]
By introducing the RERDA, 2016, and the transfer/issue of security by any person residing outside India Regulations under FEMA, 2017, the real estate broking services sector has become more organized and boosted through the FDI flow. However, industry experts have their interpretations and opinions about the real-estate broking service status. The government has relaxed the existing norms and rationalized them to simplify the complicated FDI process. The clarification and subsequent change in FDI policy would provide further clarity to the players in the industry. It would impact homebuyers positively.[25] FDI will aid the government's growth objective to provide affordable housing for all by 2022.[26] According to the EoDB report 2020, India improved its position to 63/190 in 2019 from 77 in 2018 and 100 in 2017, suggesting its continuous efforts to become a hub destination for more FDI[27]. However, the Act's impact is visible in the ranking for property registration (154/190), possibly due to its implementation's patchy process. The government is likely to focus on more reforms on this issue, among others, during 2020 to push EoDB and boost FDI in real estate.
With several projects protected by RERA now, investing in real estate is no longer perceived as a risky proposition. The stricter regulations increased transparency and consolidation in the real estate industry. A significant drop (COVID-19 effect) in property markets made it lucrative and increased consumer interest among non-resident Indians (NRIs). Reports suggest that the NRI investments in Indian residential real estate will touch an all-time high of US$ 13.1 billion by 2021; the significant inflow comes from the UAE, the USA, the UK, and Canada.[28] Furthermore, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs), though the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) opened its door in 2007 and brought REIT Regulations in 2014 with amendments in 2018 and 2020, launched its first offering in March 2019 (SEBI, 2018; SEBI, 2020). REITs have started impacting the real estate sector. It has opened up the platform to allow investors with a lower budget to make safe investments in the Indian realty market.[29] The industry analysis shows India has attracted US$ 43.5 Billion of REITs' institutional investments in the sector during the period 2016-20, nearly five times compared to USD 9.4 Billion investment made in the previous five years.[30] A recent positive development is that India moved to rank 34 in 2020, jumped by five spots from 2014 in GRETI, 2020 primarily because of the efficiency of the reforms of the Government through RERDA, 2016[31], signifying more inflows of FDIs and NRIs in the Indian real estate industry.
In addition, on 6 November 2019, the Indian government announced Rs. Two hundred fifty billion investment packages to revive the 1600 stalled housing projects to bail out distressed homebuyer.[32] This policy perspective is a welcoming move and calls for implementation to push the real estate sector with a multiplier impact on the economy. The Economic Survey 2020 of the Government suggests that residential space, being 80% of the entire real estate sector, can achieve healthy growth if developers allow a drop in housing prices. The suggestion, if implemented, could clear the inventory of 943,000 units worth US$ 1030 million stuck in various phases of the project cycle across eight top cities.[33] Towards achieving this goal, the government, in its budget 2020, has extended the tax benefit of the fiscal year 2019-20 to 2020-21.[34] Additionally, the government has announced an increase in the differential income tax from 10% to 20% on 12 November 2020 on the direct sale of residential properties valued up to Rs 20 million until 30 June 2021. The switch would help homebuyers and developers cope with trapped assets priced at up to 20% more than the ready-to-buy rate.
Nevertheless, industry advocacy groups prefer a one-time debt reform. A streamlined use of last-mile lending will help revive the industry rather than a tax deduction under the new relief program. Moreover, because of the government's policy drive to build affordable housing, this segment is gaining momentum. Developers from all over the country show a keen interest in participating in this development.[35] Nevertheless, when the RERDA (2016) is in place, the availability of these financial benefits and concessions will surely motivate homebuyers to have their dream homes hassle free.
FDI and NRIs investments in the housing sector vis-à-vis the real estate industry with fiscal support benefitting homebuyers have a modest beginning. There has been no evidence of a breach of the Act or RERA, except for a legal debate about the Act's legal interpretation. Time will speak for itself. However, with stringent RERA regulations, homebuyers' interest appears to be safe.
Figure 2, the Fishbone diagram, shows the analytical views of the impact assessment.
[5] https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/home-buyers-disappointed-as-haryana-rera-slugs-along/story-ccFlFhWj4ZlGb4fwrP9eOL.html
[7] See section 40 of the RERDA, 2016 for recovery of penalty/compensation.
[11] Supreme Court's judgment details in Bikram Chatterji&Ors Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition(C) No.940/2017
[13] https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/5013/5013_2021_14_1502_31099_Judgement_11-Nov-2021.pdf.
[14] In one public interest litigation known as "PIL", the Indian Supreme Court, on January 17, 2021, advised the Central Government to bring a model "builder-buyer" and "agent-buyer" agreement to safeguard middle-class homebuyers, which shall apply to the whole country. The reason for this is the attempt to include various conditions in the contract such that the average person may be unaware of their implications. See details in https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/it-s-important-to-have-model-builder-buyer-agreement-supreme-court-121100500039_1.html.
[15] http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/RERA_Status_Tracker%20(11-09-2021).pdf.
[16] WBHIRA)-2017 was notified on 1 June 2017, almost one year after the promulgation of the central Act-RERDA, 2016.
[17] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/bengal-opts-out-of-rera-passes-own-diluted-law/article24073510.ece#
[18]Mishra (2019). https://www.proptiger.com/guide/post/bengal-notifies-own-real-estate-act-homebuyers-stand-to-lose.
[19]Indian Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 116/ 2019 on 4 May 2021 has struck down the Act ordering WBHIRA-2017 is unconstitutional and in conflict with RERDA, 2016. The state is bound to legislate new Rules soon. For more case details see https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/2356/2356_2019_35_1501_27914_Judgement_04-May-2021.pdf
[22]Extraneous reason- The "Jugaad" (implying quick-fix way of problem- solving/bribery kind of things) culture in India emphasizes corruption (Lee, 2018).
[26] India's government launched Prime Minister Awas Yojana (PMAY-U) in June 2015, intending to provide "Housing for All by 2022"–National Mission for Urban Housing. The government targets building 11.2 million houses in urban areas across the country during 2015-22.
[28]https://www.financialexpress.com/money/indian-residential-real-estate-the-new-hotspot-for-nri-investments-amid-covid-19/2085562/
[33] See Mishra (2021). https://www.proptiger.com/guide/post/fdi-in-indias-real-estate-is-increasing-shows-economic-survey-2018.
[35]http://cbre.vo.llnwd.net/grgservices/secure/India%20Real%20Estate%20Market%20Outlook%202019_R9Ol.pdf?e=1617383933&h=c35acf8810cb112ed030d97250f9afda