Last Updated on June 4, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Haryana RERA Appellate Tribunal Clarifies: Infrastructure Concessionaire Is Not a “Promoter” Under RERA. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed against rejection of a RERA registration application concerning a multi-level parking-cum-commercial infrastructure project.

In an important ruling dated 22 May 2026, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal clarified that:

An entity merely developing and operating infrastructure under a revocable concession agreement does not qualify as a “promoter” under the RERA Act.

Haryana RERA Appellate Tribunal

• Statutory Right: Any aggrieved party (allottee, promoter, or real estate agent) has the legal right to challenge a State RERA order before the jurisdictional REAT. [1, 2]
• Strict 60-Day Timeline: Appeals must be filed within 60 days from the date the order copy is received. Late filings require proving “sufficient cause” for the delay to get condoned. [1, 2, 3]
• The Pre-Deposit Mandate: Under Section 43(5), if a promoter (builder) wants to appeal an adverse order, the tribunal will not hear the case until they deposit at least 30% of the penalty, or the 100% total amount due to the homebuyer (with interest and compensation), whichever is applicable

Tribunal Powers & Procedures

• Fast-Track Intent: Under Section 44(5), the tribunal is mandated to attempt to dispose of an appeal within 60 days of its receipt. [1, 2]
• Civil Court Equal: The tribunal holds powers similar to a civil court. Its final orders are executable as a civil court decree. [1, 2, 3]
• Jurisdiction Barrier: Under Section 79, standard civil courts are barred from entertaining matters that fall under the purview of RERA or the Appellate Tribunal. [1]
• Remedy Election: Per the Supreme Court, if a homebuyer chooses to seek relief through RERA, they cannot later approach a consumer forum for the exact same dispute. [1]

📌 Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose after an infrastructure developer sought registration of a project under:

• The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)

The project involved:

✔ Development of:

• Multi-level parking
• Commercial infrastructure

under a concession agreement granted by a government development authority.

The Authority had earlier rejected the registration application holding that:

• The project did not qualify as a “real estate project”
• The applicant did not fall within the definition of “promoter” under RERA.

⚖️ Main Arguments Raised

The developer argued that:

• RERA is a welfare legislation requiring liberal interpretation
• The project involved commercial infrastructure
• Rights under the concession agreement were sufficient to seek registration
• The entity qualified as an occupier and developer under applicable statutes.

Reliance was also placed on a Madras High Court judgment concerning leasehold projects and applicability of RERA.

🏛 Tribunal’s Key Findings

🔹 Ownership & Title Continued with Government Authority

The Tribunal examined the concession agreement and observed that:

✔ Land ownership remained vested with the government authority
✔ The concession agreement was revocable in nature
✔ The infrastructure would revert back after expiry of concession period.

Thus:

• The developer never acquired transferable ownership rights.

Also Read-Limitation in Filing Appeal RERA Punjab Appellate Tribunal

🔹 No Right to Sell or Transfer Units

The Tribunal emphasized that:

A core requirement for being a “promoter” under RERA is the element of transfer or sale of apartments, plots, or buildings.

However, in the present arrangement:

❌ The concessionaire had:

• No right to sell units
• No right to transfer property further by sale or lease
• No ownership rights in the project infrastructure.

The Tribunal held that the entity merely functioned as:

• An infrastructure developer/licensee.

🔹 Concessionaire Held to Be Mere Licensee

According to the Tribunal:

• The entity’s role was limited to:
  ✔ Designing
  ✔ Financing
  ✔ Constructing
  ✔ Operating infrastructure

for a specified period to recover investment through:

• Parking operations
• Commercial licensing
• Advertisement revenue sharing.

Hence:

The status of the entity was “not more than that of a licensee.”

Also Read-PUDA APPEAL DISMISSED BY RERA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNJAB

🔍 Tribunal Distinguishes Madras High Court Judgment

The Tribunal also considered a Madras High Court judgment dealing with:

• Leasehold properties
• Long-term lease transactions

but distinguished it on facts, observing that:

• The earlier case involved lease rights and commercial leasing
• The present case involved:
  • Revocable concession arrangement
  • No transfer rights
  • No sale component.

❌ Final Outcome

The Tribunal upheld the Authority’s decision and held that:

✔ The project was not a “real estate project” under RERA
✔ The applicant was not a “promoter”
✔ Registration application was rightly rejected

Accordingly:

• The appeal was dismissed.

Also Read-RERA Appellate Tribunal Himachal Pradesh at Chandigarh

📌 Key Legal Takeaways

✔ RERA applies where there is element of sale/transfer of units
✔ Mere infrastructure development does not automatically attract RERA
✔ Concessionaire without ownership rights is not necessarily a promoter
✔ Revocable concession agreements differ from leasehold projects
✔ Substance of transaction determines applicability of RERA

🧑‍⚖️ Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is important for:

• Infrastructure concession projects
• PPP (Public Private Partnership) models
• Government authority developments
• Commercial infrastructure operators

It clarifies the limits of RERA applicability and distinguishes between:

✔ Real estate promotion
and
✔ Mere infrastructure operation/licensing.

Also Read-Caveat Before RERA Appellate Tribunal Haryana

🔍 Read more on below Keywords

Haryana RERA promoter definition
Concessionaire not promoter under RERA
Infrastructure project RERA applicability
Real estate project definition case
PPP project RERA judgment
Licensee vs promoter RERA law

More on 99888-17966