We are pleased to present this edition of our Real Estate Newsletter, covering key developments since August 2026 in India’s real estate regulatory landscape, along with developments from around the world that Indian regulators could draw upon.
The law develops
MahaRERA Grants Registered Projects a Four-Month Force Majeure Extension
By Order No. 66/2026 dated August 07, 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘MahaRERA’) has extended the registration and completion timelines of eligible registered projects by 4 (four) months under Sections 6[1] and 37[2] of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA’). It follows a Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (‘MoHUA’) advisory of July 31, 2026 for a common extension across state RERAs, after the Ministry of Finance treated the prevailing West Asia situation as war for force majeure purposes. Projects whose completion, revised or extended completion dates fall on or after February 28, 2026 qualify automatically; those registered on or after August 01, 2026 are excluded. Haryana and Karnataka have issued comparable orders. The extension moves the completion date on the RERA register. It does not rewrite the possession date in individual agreements for sale, settle interest liability for delay, or amend lender covenants.
[1] The registration granted under section 5 may be extended by the Authority on an application made by the promoter due to force majeure, in such form and on payment of such fee as may be specified by regulations made by the Authority: Provided that the Authority may in reasonable circumstances, without default on the part of the promoter, based on the facts of each case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the registration granted to a project for such time as it considers necessary, which shall, in aggregate, not exceed a period of one year: Provided further that no application for extension of registration shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Explanation. — For the purpose of this section, the expression “force majeure” shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project.
[2] The Authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, issue such directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary and such directions shall be binding on all concerned.
Read: MahaRERA Order No. 66/2026
Maharashtra Fast-Tracks Enforcement of MahaRERA Recovery Warrants
The Maharashtra revenue department has issued revised guidelines, superseding those of March 2012, directing that MahaRERA recovery warrants be treated as priority cases in the interests of individual flat purchasers. Dedicated revenue recovery officers have been appointed in Mumbai, Thane, Pune, and certain other collectorates, and are to be appointed elsewhere.
Verified recovery certificates must now reach the tehsildar within seven days, and the demand notice then allows fourteen days to pay. On non-payment, movable and immovable property may be seized and auctioned under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Officers may require an affidavit of the defaulter’s property and trace assets through registration, transport, local body, Registrar of Companies, and income tax records. Negligent officials face disciplinary action.
For allottees, the recovery machinery matters as much as the order awarding payment.
Read: Times of India (28 Aug)
DILRMP 3.0 Assigns Every Land Parcel a Universal Bhu-Aadhaar
The Ministry of Rural Development has released the operational guidelines for the third phase of the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP), a central sector scheme running from 2026-27 to 2030-31.
Every land parcel is to receive a fourteen-digit unique identification number, a Universal Bhu-Aadhaar. Cadastral maps are to be digitised and linked to precise geographical coordinates, property registration made fully online, and a paperless case management system integrated with land records so that disputes can be tracked. Implementation rests with the States, each nominating a State Nodal Officer not below the rank of Secretary, Commissioner or Director, with oversight by a State committee under the Chief Secretary and a national committee under the Land Resources Secretary.
For title due diligence and litigation, encumbrance discovery moves from manual search towards a system flag.
Read: DILRMP 3.0
CBDT Drops the TAN Requirement When Buying Property from Non-Residents
By Notification No. 121/2026 dated September 22, 2026, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) has notified the Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2026, amending rules 215, 218 and 219 and Appendix III to the Income-tax Rules, 2026. They govern deduction of tax at source under section 393(2) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 where a resident individual or Hindu undivided family pays consideration for the transfer of immovable property to a non-resident.
Form 132 now covers such a transfer, and Form 141 carries a new Schedule E requiring particulars of the property, the parties, the stamp duty value and consideration, instalments, capital gains, the rate of deduction and the tax deducted. Where the non-resident has no permanent account number, his tax residency certificate and tax identification number particulars are required under rule 217 so that tax is not deducted at the higher rate. In force from October 01, 2026.
Those two documents now carry a direct rate consequence and are worth making a condition precedent to payment.
Read: CBDT Notification No. 121/2026 (22 Sep)
SEBI Clears Depository Receipts on REIT and InvIT Units to Draw Foreign Capital
Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), at its Board meeting of September 24, 2026, approved amendments to the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 and the SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 enabling the issuance of depository receipts over units, to attract foreign capital. They are to be issued and listed in the International Financial Services Centre in India to begin with, open to all foreign investors including non-resident Indians. The framework will follow by separate circular, so nothing is operative yet.
The threshold for unitholder approval moves from seventy-five per cent of all outstanding units to seventy-five per cent of the votes cast, aligning with the Companies Act, 2013, and “dissenting unitholders” now means only those who voted against.
On a sponsor’s exit, the offer may be made by the outgoing or the continuing sponsor, all units tendered must be accepted, and any shortfall in minimum public unitholding cured within one year. The definition of “real estate” now covers common infrastructure which is not co-located.
Read: SEBI Press Release PR No. 59/2026 (24 Sep)
Disclose, or Default to Rs.1: RBI Recasts How Banks Value REIT and InvIT Units
The Reserve Bank of India, by circular RBI/2026-27/264 dated September 22, 2026, issued the Commercial Banks (Classification, Valuation, and Operation of Investment Portfolio) Third Amendment Directions, 2026, inserting paragraphs 84A and 84B into the Commercial Banks Directions, 2025.
Quoted units of Real Estate Investment Trusts and Infrastructure Investment Trusts are to be valued as prescribed for quoted securities, and unquoted units at the net asset value disclosed by the trust. Where a trust fails to compute and disclose net asset value as SEBI specifies, its units are to be valued at Rs.1 for the purposes of the Directions, as are infrequently traded units. The directions took effect from the date of issue.
Discipline in disclosing net asset value now bears directly on how lenders carry these units.
Read: RBI/2026-27/264, DOR.MRG.REC.No.228/00-00-001/2026-27 (22 Sep)
No Approval, No Registration: Maharashtra Bars Sub-Registrars from Recording Unsanctioned or Excess-Area Flats
By a circular dated October 12, 2026, the Maharashtra revenue department has directed sub-registrars to refuse registration of agreements for first sale, sale deeds, apartment deeds, and other transfer documents for units in construction projects where the prescribed documents are missing, or where the flat area stated exceeds the area in the sanctioned plan. For projects outside MahaRERA registration, the documents include the construction permission or commencement certificate, the sanctioned plan showing the unit’s area, a zone certificate and a measurement or survey plan. For MahaRERA-registered projects, the registration certificate and the sanctioned plan are required, and an occupation certificate may also be required. Sub-registrars who knowingly register documents for unauthorised construction face departmental inquiry.
The direction followed a meeting chaired by the Revenue Minister on September 22, 2026. Buyers and lenders should match the flat area in the document against the sanctioned plan before registration, and promoters should confirm with the registration office which certificates will be asked for at first sale. The circular itself is not yet public, and whether a circular can override the statute is open to challenge.
Read: Times of India (13 Oct) | Nagpur Today (14 Oct) | ZaoBao India (14 Oct)
One Code, Many Authorities: UP Approves the Model Building Regulations, 2026 for Industrial Areas
On October 09, 2026, the Uttar Pradesh Cabinet approved the implementation of the Model Building Regulations, 2026 for areas under the state’s industrial development authorities, with the stated aim of simplifying building-plan approvals and improving land use. The regulations reportedly provide deemed approval for plans by licensed professionals for residential plots up to 500 square metres and commercial plots up to 200 square metres where the authority does not respond within sixty days, floor space linked to the width of the abutting road, prescribed setbacks, parking requirements that scale with building size and mandatory structural safety audits. Noida, Greater Noida, and the Yamuna Expressway authority are named as covered areas.
Once notified, the regulations will replace authority-specific bye-laws, so layout and sanction strategy for pipeline projects in these areas should be revisited against the final text.
Read: Official Circular
Digitally Signed or Not Filed: UP-RERA Overhauls Quarterly Reports and Warns Buyers on Payments
By a statement dated October 10, 2026, UP-RERA extended the deadline for the Quarterly Progress Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2026 to October 21, 2026, to allow promoters to move to the new digital process. Under an Office Memorandum dated September 30, 2026, the REG-1, REG-2 and REG-3 certificates accompanying the report must be signed with Digital Signature Certificates by the project’s architect, engineer and chartered accountant before upload to the UP-RERA portal, building on the quarterly-report requirements in UP-RERA’s consolidated General Regulations, 2019. Separately, by an advisory dated October 12, 2026, UP-RERA urged buyers to pay booking amounts, instalments, and other dues only into the designated collection account of the relevant project, and to verify the account details on the official portal before paying.
Promoters should make sure the three professionals hold valid DSCs well before October 21; for buyers, the advisory is a simple check that also supports a later claim if funds are diverted.
Read: Statement dated October 10, 2026 | Office Memorandum dated September 30, 2026
From Investors to Lenders: Banks Can Now Finance REITs Directly
The Reserve Bank of India’s final amendment directions on lending to Real Estate Investment Trusts and Infrastructure Investment Trusts, issued on June 10, 2026, took effect on October 01, 2026. Commercial banks may now lend directly to REITs. Lending is limited to SEBI-registered and listed trusts, and the aggregate exposure of all banks to a borrowing REIT, together with its underlying special purpose vehicles and holding companies, may not exceed 49% of the value of the trust’s assets, or a lower limit set by the bank’s board. SEBI’s leverage framework for REITs continues to apply.
Together with the SEBI approvals covered above, this widens the funding options for income-producing real estate; facility documentation for REITs should be tested against the RBI conditions on exposure, security, and repayment.
Read: RBI press release (10 Jun)
State of Play
Supreme Court Directs NOIDA to Waive Time-Extension Charges for a Developer’s Delay
In Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, decided on September 03, 2026, the Supreme Court held that homebuyers and the successful resolution applicant cannot be burdened with time-extension charges for delays attributable to the erstwhile developer. It directed NOIDA to waive the charges and set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s direction treating them as costs of the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Granite Gate held two plots from NOIDA on perpetual lease for the Lotus Boulevard and Lotus Panache projects at Noida. On its insolvency the homebuyers formed the committee of creditors and pooled their own funds to continue construction.
The reasoning is tied to those facts. It is not a general rule that authority charges can never rank as costs, and resolution applicants bidding for stressed real estate should still price authority dues conservatively.
Read: Supreme Court judgment in Granite Gate v. NOIDA (3 Sep)
Supreme Court Unblocks the Stalled Sushant Aquapolis Resolution Plan
In One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, decided on August 31, 2026 (2026 INSC 962), the Supreme Court cleared the bottlenecks stalling an approved resolution plan for Sushant Aquapolis, a group housing project of the insolvent Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, which it called a castle in the air. The Authority had withheld renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan.
After the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning, Uttar Pradesh and the Vice-Chairman appeared in person and the site was inspected, the Authority agreed to sanction the revised plan once an application was filed through the State’s FASTPASS portal and the applicant undertook by affidavit to carry out all internal development works, external works up to the approach road, and the buildings for the economically weaker sections and lower-income groups.
The appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek restoration on any impediment. The order is project-specific and court-supervised, not a substitute for ordinary planning and insolvency requirements.
Read: One City Infrastructure v. GDA (31 Aug)
The Brochure Is the Promise: Supreme Court Holds DLF to What It Sold
In Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors., by order dated August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the project as sold was required to be delivered in accordance with the representations made in the brochure and plan provided to prospective buyers, and described the deviation before it as not minor but substantial.
On a Central Bureau of Investigation status report, maps and photographs, a twenty-four-metre-wide road shown across the DLF Primus project at Gurugram was found to be out of conformity with the brochure and plan: of a stretch of roughly 147 metres, about 52 metres had been developed as a green patch and a further substantial portion used for parking.
The Court asked the Director of the Bureau to assign two additional Inspectors to complete the preliminary enquiry objectively and independently and indicated it would pass appropriate orders if the project was not completed in accordance with the brochure by October 12, 2026. There is no final finding of wrongdoing.
Read: Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. v. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors. (judgment)
Fraud, or Simply Undervalued? Stamp-Duty Test Heads to a Larger Bench
In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and Another (2026 INSC 963), the Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether the power under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 depends upon wilful undervaluation with a fraudulent intention to evade duty. The dispute arose from a gap between a guideline value of Rs.500 per square foot and consideration of Rs.168.30 per square foot.
The Court doubted the law declared in V.N. Devadoss, observing that section 47-A merely requires reason to believe that market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, and that fraudulent intention cannot be read into it. A threshold of culpable intent, it said, cuts both ways: it exposes an honest purchaser of encumbered property to a roving enquiry, while disabling the registering authority from even initiating one where consideration has passed clandestinely in cash.
Nothing is decided by a referring order, and the Court did not determine the market value or the corporation’s liability.
Read: Supreme Court order in Bharat Petroleum v. District Revenue Officer (Stamps) (2026INSC 963)
Supreme Court Restores Uniform Compensation and Corrects the Severance Baseline
In Surinder Ahuja v. State of Punjab, decided on September 29, 2026 (2026 INSC 1068), the Supreme Court disposed of forty-seven appeals concerning land acquired in six villages of District Fazilka, Punjab for the Aspal Extension Drain. It set aside the High Court’s radial pricing model, which had graded rates from Rs.2,99,000 to Rs.3,39,000 per acre, and restored a uniform Rs.5,00,000 per acre, the step-down having created an artificial and legally unsustainable disparity within a contiguous tract acquired under a single notification.
On severance, the High Court had committed a fundamental legal error by shifting the baseline from the remaining unacquired land to the acquired portion and had applied Tehal Singh as a geometric rule of thumb based on distance from the village abadi while ignoring the physical reality on record: a drain about 100 feet wide with high banks and bridges two kilometres apart which combine harvesters could not cross. Severance at 50% of the market value of the remaining unacquired land was restored.
Three findings were affirmed: fruit-bearing tree compensation stays confined to the 280 trees pleaded, at Rs.5,38,300; solatium and the additional amount under sections 23(2) and 23(1A) are payable on market value, not on damages; and tubewell compensation is Rs.50,000 each.
Read: Supreme Court judgment in Surinder Ahuja v. State of Punjab (29 Sep; 2026 INSC 1068)
Supreme Court Sets Aside a SARFAESI Auction for Breach of the Thirty-Day Rule
In Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd. v. P.M. Associates and Ors., decided on September 30, 2026, the Supreme Court set aside an auction of the Fernhill resort at Ooty conducted by IFCI Limited under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), holding that the cumulative defects deprived it of legal sanctity and that no right had accrued to the purchaser.
The creditor took a bid and earnest money after an order of restraint of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had become operative. The mandatory thirty-day period under rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was curtailed, the borrower having until September 23, 2011 but the sale being concluded on September 12, 2011 without his being told the bids had been opened. The sale certificate went to a partnership firm which did not exist when bids were invited, though the bid was made by an individual, and the auction records were never produced.
The thirty-day period affords the borrower a final opportunity to redeem under section 13(8), and such safeguards matter because the creditor sells without prior intervention of a court.
Read: Supreme Court judgment in Sterling Holiday Resorts v. P.M. Associates (30 Sep; 2026 INSC 1071)
Supreme Court Keeps Up the Pressure on Parsvnath and Supertech
At the hearing of September 08, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected Parsvnath Developers’ proposal for handing over possession of flats or repaying monies with interest to homebuyers, observing that it seemed like another device to delay the proceedings, and asked for a fresh proposal.
On August 17, 2026, the Court issued notice in NBCC (I) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India and Ors. against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s refusal to exempt NBCC from statutory RERA requirements for the completion of 16 stalled Supertech projects, including a separate bank account with 70% of amounts realised from allottees deposited into it, and prior allottee consent for transfer of a promoter’s majority rights and liabilities. The Tribunal held it was not competent to grant any exemption, having already directed the statutory authorities to grant approvals within a time-bound period.
These are procedural developments, not final determinations, and the current orders should be checked before reliance.
Read: ThePrint/PTI (8 Sep) | LiveLawBiz on the NBCC notice (17 Aug)
Delhi High Court Orders DDA to Clear Pending Freehold Conversions Within Two Months
In Delhi Development Authority v. Mala Sahni Seth, CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 with connected writ petitions, by order dated September 28, 2026, the High Court of Delhi directed the DDA to process all pending leasehold to freehold conversion applications in terms of the policy prevalent as on the date of filing of the application, with decisions within two months.
The Interactive Disposal of Land Information System portal has been non-functional since January 02, 2026, when MoHUA communicated that a policy decision was to be taken on whether conversion charges should be calculated on circle rates. The Court recorded 1,373 applications filed between 2020 and 2026 still pending, approval granted in 308 without conveyance deeds being executed, and Rs.155.06 crore already collected.
On September 07, 2026, it had held that any policy now announced would have to be prospective in nature and had found that the minutes revealed no clarity on any policy whatsoever. When the Secretary, MoHUA sought four further months, the Court held this would leave conversion standstill across Delhi for a full year and was completely unacceptable, residents having struggled for about eight months. Part-heard, listed on December 11, 2026.
Read: Delhi High Court order in DDA v. Mala Sahni Seth (28 Sep)
Bombay High Court Affirms the Allottee’s Absolute Section 18 Refund
In Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Nitin Madhukar Shewale & Ors., the High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that the right of an allottee who withdraws from a project to the return of the amount paid with interest under section 18 is absolute and unqualified, and cannot be diluted by the Regulatory Authority, the Appellate Authority or even the High Court by giving the promoter a concession to refund only after securing an occupation certificate.
The allottees had booked flats in the Waterways project at Nashik for Rs.43.13 lakh, of which Rs.22.58 lakh was paid, under an agreement of May 16, 2016 promising possession by December 31, 2017. MahaRERA allowed their claim in August 2021 with a concession to the promoter, which the Appellate Tribunal removed in November 2023.
Section 18(1) leaves no discretion as to timing. Efforts to complete the project and concerns about cash flow cannot postpone a refund, which is the bare minimum an allottee is entitled to, distinct from compensation.
Read: Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Nitin Madhukar Shewale & Ors
Madras High Court Holds That Title Disputes Belong in Civil Court, Not Before RERA
In N. Balakrishnan v. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (2026:MHC:3769), by order dated September 09, 2026, the High Court of Judicature at Madras held that where there are disputed questions of title it is not for the Authority to go into the same and decide the issue itself, and that the aggrieved party must approach the competent civil court.
The Court accepted that where prima facie the project proponent does not qualify as somebody having title, or the encumbrance is such that registration cannot be granted, the Authority may reject registration, having regard to the promoter’s declaration of legal title under section 4(2)(l). On the facts the civil court had found a prima facie case against the petitioner, so no question of rejection arose. It would also not be open to the Authority to revoke a registration already granted where construction is at an advanced stage.
Read: N. Balakrishnan v. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Telangana Tribunal Holds That Extending Registration Does Not Postpone Possession
In M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi and connected matters, the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal held that extension of the registration of a project does not automatically mean that the due date for completion as per the respective agreements of sale also gets extended. The agreement of sale is legally enforceable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the promoter cannot unilaterally alter the date for handing over possession unless both parties agree.
Thirty-one appeals against orders directing delay interest in the Vasavi Lake City-West project at Hafeezpet were dismissed. The Authority had separately directed the promoter in August 2026 to pay interest at 10.70% per annum for delayed possession in the same project, recording grave concern at more than fifty complaints against it.
Read: Telangana REAT order in Vasavi Realtors v. Taru Trivedi (T.A. No. 17 of 2026 & batch, 9 Sep)
Give Us Dates, Not Ranges: NCLAT Pushes Supertech Timelines as NBCC Floats Tenders
On October 09, 2026, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal asked the Apex Court Committee supervising the 16 stalled Supertech projects, which NBCC is completing, to file tentative project-wise completion dates before the next hearing on November 06, 2026. The affidavit filed through the Committee gave only an indicative range of 12 to 36 months, and the tribunal noted that the projects are at different stages of construction. On October 06, 2026, NBCC said it had floated 25 tenders worth Rs.9,620.33 crore for construction and related works across the 16 projects, covering nearly 50,000 housing units in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Uttarakhand, and Karnataka.
This continues the oversight of stalled projects reported above. The November 06 hearing will be the first test of whether the tendering translates into dated delivery commitments.
Read: Hindu BusinessLine/PTI (7 Oct) | Ram Kishor Arora (Suspended Director, Supertech Ltd) v. Union Bank of India & Anr
Final Means Final: Karnataka High Court Will not Reopen a K-RERA Order Through an Attachment Challenge
In a writ petition by Unishire Promoters Private Limited (W.P. No. 6366 of 2025; 2026:KHC:55933), decided on October 06, 2026, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the attachment of the developer’s Bengaluru property made to recover dues owed to a homebuyer under a K-RERA order. The developer’s appeal against the K-RERA order had been dismissed on August 23, 2025 and that order had become final; the Court held that the consequential attachment could not then be challenged as bad in law, no material having been produced to attack the underlying order.
The recovery chain ran from K-RERA’s letter to the Deputy Commissioner in February 2024 to an attachment order in January 2025 and a request to auction in September 2025. Once appeals are exhausted, RERA recovery warrants will be executed against the developer’s property, and a challenge to the attachment is not a second route to contest the original order.
Read: Unishire Promoters Private Limited (W.P. No. 6366 of 2025; 2026:KHC:55933)
Same Deal, New Payment Terms: Bombay High Court Says a Supplementary Deed Is not a Fresh Conveyance
In Om Shivam Builders Private Limited v. Joint District Registrar & Collector of Stamps, Raigad (Writ Petition No. 4682 of 2021), decided on October 06, 2026, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay set aside a stamp duty demand of Rs.21.08 lakh and a penalty of Rs.51.18 lakh. Under a 2009 Deed of Assignment for leasehold rights in plots at Kamothe, the total consideration was Rs.3 crore, of which Rs.2.40 crore remained unpaid; a 2013 Supplementary Deed provided that the balance would be satisfied by giving the original owners six shops and 20 flats. The Stamp Authorities valued those units as a separate chargeable subject and raised a deficit.
The Court held that valuation does not create liability by itself: the authority must first show that the document contains a transaction chargeable under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and the 2009 and 2013 documents had to be read together. Because the supplementary deed transferred no fresh right in the plot, it was not a second conveyance. For developers who settle land consideration in built-up area, the ruling supports resisting duty on a document that changes only the mode of payment, though the outcome turns on the terms of the deed and the charging article.
Read: Om Shivam Builders Private Limited v. Joint District Registrar & Collector of Stamps, Raigad
Beyond India – Reforms Worth Watching
China: Selling the Finished Home, Not the Blueprint
China’s late-August 2026 policy package marks a structural shift away from the presale model. A central document on improving the commercial housing sales system calls for a strong and orderly push towards sales of completed homes, letting buyers “get what they see” and reducing delivery risk.
Developer-loan maturities are now differentiated, in principle up to three years for presale projects and up to five for completed-home projects, and the maximum individual housing-loan term has been extended from 30 to 40 years. The securities regulator has issued parallel guidelines channelling developer financing through stocks, bonds, asset-backed securities and REITs, with weight shifting from corporate scale to individual project quality.
India’s RERA already disciplines presales through the 70% separate-account rule. China’s experiment with completion-linked sales and financing terms shows where buyer-protection policy internationally is heading.
The EU Proposes an Affordable Housing Act as a Framework, Not a Mandate
On September 09, 2026, the European Commission proposed an Affordable Housing Act for member states and cities where affordability pressures are greatest. It does not harmonise housing policy. It creates a common framework giving public authorities legal certainty that local affordability measures, including action in cities where housing is increasingly used for purposes other than primary residence, are compatible with EU single-market law.
The proposal is not yet enacted law. Spain approved Royal Decree-Law 26/2026 on September 29, but Congress declined to validate it and repealed it on October 02, so urgent housing measures can lapse quickly.
Where affordability stress is concentrated in a few metropolitan markets, as in India, legally insulating targeted local interventions is an instructive model.
Read: European Commission press release (9 Sep) | Spanish Congress repeal (2 Oct)
England Moves to a Rules-Based Planning System
On August 17, 2026, the UK government published a new National Planning Policy Framework for England alongside a policy statement on creating a clear, rules-based planning system. The package replaces discretionary, case-by-case negotiation with clearer default rules, including fast-tracking thousands of new homes around train, tram and underground stations.
Predictability as a supply-side reform is directly relevant to Indian states revisiting development control regulations and to the interface between planning approvals and RERA registration timelines.
Read: GOV.UK policy statement and NPPF (17 Aug) | GOV.UK news release
Saudi Arabia Ties Land Transfers to Payment of the Vacant-Property Fee
Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Municipalities and Housing has approved executive regulations for the vacant real estate fee, completing the framework introduced by the May 2025 amendments to the White Land and Vacant Real Estate Tax Law. Liability depends on an announced zone and the vacancy conditions, rather than applying to every vacant building immediately. Specialist reporting indicates that Council of Ministers Decision No. 263 prevents documentation of in-scope land transfers until outstanding fees are verified as paid.
Clearance of property dues at registration is a useful comparator for India, but any such reform must define its scope and safeguards clearly.
Read: Deloitte Middle East (15 Sep) | Tax & Markets (4 Sep)
Singapore Extends Stamp-Duty Remission Timelines for En Bloc Redevelopment Sites
On July 28, 2026, Singapore extended the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty remission timelines for licensed housing developers buying qualifying en bloc sites on or after July 29, 2026. The change covers Large Sites yielding 700 to 1,399 homes and Mega Sites yielding at least 1,400 homes, with an intermediate sales condition for Mega Sites. It gives more time to earn remission of the remittable component, not a lower headline rate. Indian cities with ageing cooperative housing stock can draw on the distinction between relief for genuine redevelopment complexity and protection against land-banking.
Read: Singapore Ministry of Finance (28 Jul)
From Blueprint to Keys: Chinese Cities Begin Rolling Out the New Presale Rules
The late-August package on the commercial housing sales system, reported above, was issued as a joint notice of the housing, natural resources and financial regulators. Major cities have now issued local implementing opinions. Shanghai’s four-agency opinion of September 28, 2026 requires that for land plots whose transfer announcements were published after August 28, 2026 a presale project must have its main structure topped out before presale, with presale funds under whole-process supervision until completion acceptance, and new land is to favour sales of completed homes, where the developer may take a deposit of generally no more than 3% of the price once the construction permit is issued. Individual mortgages for projects obtaining presale permit from that date may be released only after completion filing, paid directly into the supervised account. Transitional relief lets certain pipeline projects use the old presale conditions until the end of 2027. Guangzhou, Wuhan, and Tianjin (effective October 10) have issued their own implementing opinions.
India’s RERA already ring-fences collections and caps advances at 10% without a registered agreement for sale; the Chinese approach ties presale to construction stage and mortgage release to completion, and the transitional windows show how a regulator can protect pipeline projects while changing the rule.
Read: Shanghai Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau (8 Oct) | Guangzhou implementing opinion | Wuhan implementing opinion | Tianjin implementing opinion (China Real Estate Association, 12 Oct)
Spain Takes Aim at the Speculators: A New Decree-Law Reaches Quick-Flip Buyers and Tenancies
Spain published Royal Decree-Law 29/2026 of October 06, 2026 in the Official State Gazette on October 07.
Article 1 of the Royal Decree-Law prohibits speculative purchases by entities that buy property or portfolios of unpaid loans below market appraisal value, limits large holders from acquiring property for less than 70% of appraisal value until December 31, 2030, suspends eviction proceedings against vulnerable households without a housing alternative until that date, introduces an extraordinary right for a vulnerable tenant to cure rent arrears, curbs the use of seasonal and room rentals to avoid the protections for primary residences, extends certain residential leases by up to two further years and limits annual rent updates until December 31, 2027.
It follows Royal Decree-Law 26/2026, noted above, which Congress repealed on October 02 by refusing validation. Whether the new decree-law is validated remains to be seen. Housing regulation elsewhere increasingly reaches buyers of existing stock and the tenancy relationship, not only the developer-buyer relationship that RERA governs.
Read: Boletín Oficial del Estado: Real Decreto-ley 29/2026 (7 Oct) | Congress resolution repealing Real Decreto-ley 26/2026 (2 Oct)
A Christmas Deadline for Leasehold: England Promises a Commonhold Reform Bill
On October 07, 2026, the Leasehold Advisory Service reported that the Prime Minister has said the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will be introduced to Parliament before Christmas 2026. The draft Bill published in January 2026 proposed making commonhold the default tenure for new flats, capping ground rents, and replacing forfeiture with a new lease enforcement system. On September 29, 2026, the government also announced plans to cap certain permission and administration fees charged to leaseholders and to homeowners on privately managed estates, and to introduce licensing and qualification requirements and an independent regulator for property agents, with consultation on which fees to cap and at what level.
Disputes over maintenance charges, transfer fees and the conduct of managing agents are familiar in Indian housing societies, and the English combination of fee caps and a licensed agent regime is worth watching.
Read: UK Parliament, Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee statement (1 Oct) | draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill (27 Jan 2026)
The Older the Block, the Lower the Bar: Singapore Tiers En Bloc Thresholds by Age
Singapore’s Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act 2026 (Act 20 of 2026), passed on September 08 and gazetted on October 02, 2026, replaces the collective sale threshold in section 84A of the Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967 with a table that depends on the age of the development: 90% for developments under 10 years old, 80% for 10 to under 40 years, 70% for 40 to under 60 years and 65% for 60 years or more, of both share values and total area. Consenting owners must also have agreed in writing to a sale and purchase agreement specifying how proceeds will be distributed. The Act comes into operation on a date the Minister appoints.
This follows the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty relief for en bloc redevelopments reported above. A threshold that falls as a building age, coupled with a transparent proceeds-sharing requirement, is a design Indian state legislatures and regulators could study for ageing housing stock.
Read: Singapore Statutes Online: Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act 2026 (2 Oct)
We will be back next month with another update. Thank you for reading!
DISCLAIMER
The content provided in this newsletter is intended for general awareness and should not be considered as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional regarding any specific issues mentioned herein. If you have any questions about any of these developments or would like to see something different next month, reach out to us at knowledge@sarthaklaw.com .