Settlement And Dispute Resolution In Real Estate: Role Of RERA
Naman
24 Aug 2026 8:00 PM IST
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) provides for dispute resolution mechanisms through specialized forums, including Conciliation Forums established under Section 32(g) and the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) under Section 44. Under the RERA Act, the RERA authorities are not empowered to accept or enforce any settlement unless it has been passed through the Conciliation Forum established for dispute resolution. Ideally when a dispute arises between promoters and allottees, it should be referred to the conciliation forum where both parties are invited for a hearing facilitated by conciliators, who are typically representatives from consumer and promoter associations alongside RERA officers. If the parties reach an agreement, a consent settlement is drawn up and signed by both sides, and this signed agreement is vetted and certified by the Conciliators. This consent agreement is then uploaded on the RERA portal, making it binding and final. If either party fails to comply with the settlement terms, it is treated as a breach, and further legal action can be initiated before the RERA adjudicating authority. No settlement can be considered valid or accepted by the authority itself unless it has gone through this formal conciliation process, ensuring that the resolution is consensual and legally binding. If the conciliation fails, the dispute proceeds to formal adjudication. This process helps save time and costs associated with litigation while providing an amicable path to dispute resolution under the RERA framework.
Notably, the Act itself does not contain any other provisions mentioning the term "settlement" outside the conciliation forum, emphasizing that only those settlements should be formally approved which are passed through these specialized dispute resolution forums. The only alternative judicial remedy available under RERA for parties seeking resolution is to get the matter referred for settlement before Lok Adalat or file an application for settlement before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 44. This statutory design is aligned with the well-established legal principle found under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which emphasizes that dispute resolution by specialized negotiation, mediation, or conciliation forums is preferable to conventional court adjudication, owing to the specialized knowledge required in particular domains.
Dispute Resolution Framework under RERA
The scheme of the RERA Act makes it clear that the RERA Authority has been entrusted only with adjudicatory functions and not with the power to accept or reject private settlements between parties. The Act nowhere contemplates a role for the Authority in declaring any mutually reached agreement as correct, final, wrong, or incomplete. Its limited mandate is to adjudicate disputes under the Act, while Section 32(g) assigns to it the facilitative role of encouraging conciliation through duly constituted dispute settlement forums. Outside such forums, the Authority has no statutory competence to validate or invalidate settlements. Even the Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that powers not expressly provided in a statute cannot be assumed or read into it.
Against this background, an anomaly arises when one considers Section 44 of the Act, whose marginal heading refers to an “Application for settlement of disputes.” On examining the body of Section 44, however, one finds that no operative provision within the section makes reference to either “application” or “settlement.” The marginal note, therefore, points to a procedure or power that the substantive section itself does not contain. Nevertheless, its presence suggests a conceptual distinction between applications for settlement of disputes and appeals against the RERA Authority or Adjudicating Officer. A matter which is not referred to the conciliation forum by the RERA Authority could arguably be carried directly before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 as an “application for settlement of disputes.” This interpretation underscores a structural peculiarity in the Act, wherein a marginal heading suggests a settlement mechanism independent of appeals. Yet, the actual clauses of Section 44 are confined to appeals, leaving ambiguity about the intended scope of an “application for settlement of disputes”, specifically whether it can be filed while the complaint is pending before the Authority, or only after an appeal has been preferred. Until this ambiguity is resolved, Section 44 of the Act shall refer to “applications” to the Appellate Tribunal in the context of appeals as well as original applications, until specialized dispute settlement forums are set up by the RERA Authorities.
The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India[1] underscored the importance of specialized tribunals and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms outside regular court processes to deliver effective and expert resolutions in technical or sector-specific areas. Similarly, various High Courts have upheld the need for specialized forums under RERA to address real estate disputes, emphasizing that ordinary courts lack the specialized expertise that regulatory authorities and tribunals possess in adjudicating such matters. The establishment of conciliation forums under RERA aligns with this rationale, ensuring that disputes are resolved by bodies with domain expertise, procedural flexibility, and a mandate to reduce protracted litigation.
Therefore, the Act, by not recognizing any other kind of "settlement" and by entrusting dispute resolution to specialized conciliation forums or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, reflects a legislative intent to create expert bodies that can efficiently and fairly resolve real estate disputes. This design prevents authorities from unilaterally accepting settlements, preserves procedural safeguards, and underscores the specialized nature of dispute resolution in real estate, consistent with Section 89 CPC doctrines and judicial rulings advocating specialized forums over general courts for complex sectoral disputes.
In the case of Santhosh T. N. v. Permanent Lok Adalath and Other[2], the division bench of the Kerala High Court has had held that, A matter pending before a RERA authority can be settled in a Lok Adalat if the authority itself refers the case for settlement. The Court recognized the concurrent jurisdiction for settlement through Lok Adalat in such situations but also held that Permanent Lok Adalats do not have jurisdiction to entertain real estate disputes independently unless referred by RERA. The decision emphasized that RERA bars civil courts, but Lok Adalats' jurisdiction depends on the referral by the authority under RERA. Lok Adalats are statutory alternative dispute resolution forums established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, empowered to amicably settle disputes pending before courts or at pre-litigation stages through conciliation and compromise. When a RERA authority refers a dispute to a Lok Adalat, the parties have the opportunity to negotiate and settle outside formal adjudication, and any award passed by the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court, binding and final on both parties, with no further appeal. However, the Lok Adalat acts as a conciliatory body and cannot impose a settlement; resolution depends entirely on the parties' mutual agreement during the proceedings. This mechanism supports RERA's goal of expedited, cost-effective dispute resolution by leveraging the expertise and flexibility of Lok Adalats alongside RERA's own dispute settlement forums. The option to have disputes settled through Lok Adalat could be considered a third and external alternative for dispute resolution under RERA.
Therefore the primary mechanism is the conciliation forum established within the RERA framework, where settlements must be passed by the forum itself to be accepted by the RERA Authorities. The second, judicial option is to file an application before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 for dispute resolution or settlement. Beyond these two, if the RERA authority refers a pending matter to a Lok Adalat, it provides an external, statutory, and amicable forum for settlement. Lok Adalats serve as recognized alternative dispute resolution bodies outside of the RERA institutional framework, enabling parties to reach voluntary and binding settlements facilitated by legal services authorities. This creates a tri-level option structure for real estate disputes: (1) internal conciliation forums, (2) adjudication or settlement at the appellate tribunal, and (3) referral to Lok Adalat as an external settlement forum, providing flexibility and efficiency to the dispute resolution process under RERA.
The way forward: Establishment of Conciliation Forums
The way forward in strengthening dispute resolution under RERA lies in the widespread establishment and institutional strengthening of Conciliation Forums across all states. These forums offer a specialized, expedited, and cost-effective platform for resolving disputes amicably between homebuyers and promoters, avoiding protracted litigation before formal adjudicatory bodies. Experience from states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra shows that well-structured conciliation forums reduce backlog, foster stakeholder confidence, and promote transparency by involving consumer and promoter representatives alongside experienced conciliators.[3] However, challenges such as inconsistent participation by developers, jurisdictional overlaps with arbitration laws, and limited homebuyer awareness remain obstacles to their full potential. To overcome these, uniform procedural guidelines are needed nationally, along with capacity building for dispute resolution officers and comprehensive awareness campaigns to educate stakeholders about the benefits and processes of conciliation. Strengthening enforcement of settlement agreements and integrating modern technology for case management and online conciliation can further enhance efficiency. Ultimately, the success of RERA will hinge on these forums evolving into robust, accessible bodies that deliver timely, fair resolutions, upholding the Act's consumer protection mandate and contributing to healthier real estate sector governance.The way forward in strengthening dispute resolution under RERA lies in the widespread establishment and institutional strengthening of Conciliation Forums across all states. These forums offer a specialized, expedited, and cost-effective platform for resolving disputes amicably between homebuyers and promoters, avoiding protracted litigation before formal adjudicatory bodies.
Several states have established Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) dispute settlement forums primarily in the form of conciliation or mediation panels. Notably, Uttar Pradesh has established multiple conciliation forums across prominent locations that include representatives from buyer and promoter associations along with RERA conciliators, resulting in successful amicable dispute settlements between promoters and homebuyers. Maharashtra set up conciliation forums in 2018 with active participation from consumer and promoter groups, resolving a significant number of cases; similar forums have been established in Haryana, Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu. These forums function to expedite dispute resolution amicably, thereby reducing the burden on formal adjudicatory mechanisms.
On the other hand, several states and union territories including Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Sikkim, Meghalaya, and Lakshadweep have not operationalized any RERA dispute settlement forums. These states may lack such forums due to incomplete regulatory frameworks or preference for alternative dispute mechanisms, leaving formal courts or other bodies to handle disputes. Thus, while many states actively leverage specialized forums under Section 32 of RERA to promote conciliation, several others have yet to establish or operationalize these dispute resolution bodies as of 2025.
Many states have framed their own regulations and mediation mechanisms to support amicable dispute settlements under RERA, such as Haryana Mediation and Dispute Resolution Forum Regulations 2024. These regulations allow for mediation forums to facilitate settlements, and the authority can then pass orders based on such settlements which are binding. The framework overall is designed for fast-track dispute resolution, with an emphasis on consumer protection, transparency, and statutory enforcement.
The establishment of RERA conciliation forums has proven to be an effective and necessary step towards expediting the resolution of real estate disputes, reducing the burden on traditional courts and providing a faster, cost-effective, and collaborative platform for homebuyers and developers. Successful experiences from states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra demonstrate that these forums significantly enhance transparency, consumer protection, and trust in the real estate sector by resolving a large number of cases amicably through negotiations facilitated by expert conciliators. However, for these forums to realize their full potential, efforts must be strengthened to ensure their independence, uniformity, and wider awareness among stakeholders. This will solidify conciliation forums as primary mechanisms for dispute resolution under RERA, thereby supporting the Act's objective of promoting fairness and accountability in real estate transactions.
The parties seeking settlement under the RERA scheme must either pursue it through the specialized conciliation forums established under Section 32(g) or apply for settlement before the RERA Authority through Lok Adalat or before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 44, reflecting a legislative preference for expert, specialized dispute resolution over ordinary court adjudication, a principle strongly supported by judicial interpretation and procedural law in India.
