MahaRERA 2.0 – Reforms Without Compromising Buyer Protection – Anil Pharande, MD, Pharande Spaces

While substantial progress has been made towards the objectives of the Act, serious modifications are now needed to accelerate that progress and make the system work better for all stakeholders.

The first years of MahaRERA showed what was possible. The authority became functional in May 2017, with Gautam Chatterjee as its first chairman. Its original digital-first registration model helped Maharashtra take an early lead in RERA implementation.

The legal position is clear: a promoter cannot advertise or sell a real estate project without registration, and each phase of a phased development is treated as a separate real estate project for registration purposes.

The crucial lesson from that period was not that oversight was unnecessary. Rather, it was that regulation could be fast, transparent and largely based on promoter disclosures, with clear consequences for incorrect or misleading declarations. The promoter was responsible for compliance, while the regulator ensured public visibility and enforcement.

This balance appears to have gradually broken down.

Shri Manoj Saunik is the current Chairman of MahaRERA. He took charge in September 2024 after the tenure of Shri Ajoy Mehta came to an end. Shri Mehta had taken the helm in February 2021, at a difficult time for the sector, when the aftermath of COVID-19 was still affecting construction, finances and dispute resolution.

The pressure on the institution is tangible. MahaRERA’s 2023-24 annual report recorded 24,906 complaints, including 23,932 against registered projects.

Excessive Complexity Harms RE Industry

A strong regulator is necessary when dealing with such volumes. But volume alone does not justify a system in which every registration, correction, extension or amendment becomes slower, more document-heavy and reliant on intermediaries. A regulator should not become a parallel planning authority, a proxy for municipal bodies, or an additional procedural layer on top of an already crowded approval framework.

We, Maharashtra’s developers, do not ask for less accountability. Rather, what we seek is clarity, proportionality and predictability in regulation. Buyers, too, benefit when viable projects are registered early, financed properly, constructed on time and delivered with fewer disputes.

Reinstating Declaration-Based Registration

The state government and MahaRERA need to revisit whether project registration has drifted too far from the declaration-based framework envisaged under RERA. Registration should focus on whether the required disclosures, approvals and professional certifications have been submitted in the prescribed form. Detailed verification and enforcement can then follow through risk-based audits, complaints, inspections and penalties for false disclosure.

This is especially relevant in relation to development potential and revisions to approved plans. In many large developments, plans evolve because of legitimate design changes, updated approvals, infrastructure conditions or implementation requirements. Where a project’s stated FSI position changes within the permissions allowed by the planning regime, the promoter should be able to update the registration through a defined, time-bound process rather than having to enter a correction cycle repeatedly.

MahaRERA should also issue a clear policy on phase-wise and vertical registration. The Act itself acknowledges that a phased project may be registered in stages. The ability to register a logically independent vertical or phase – with clear disclosure of common infrastructure, access, obligations and timelines – can lead to better funding discipline and greater buyer transparency in high-density urban markets such as Mumbai and Pune.

The question is not whether this should be permitted without safeguards. It should not. The question is whether those safeguards can be standardised rather than determined afresh in every application.

Cut Down Unnecessary Complexity

MahaRERA’s circulars and orders are useful when they clarify the law. Public records from the authority show that circulars have addressed matters ranging from approvals and complaint hearings to project grading, quality assurance, bank accounts and stakeholder training for the MahaCRITI software system.

But every new requirement should pass a simple test: Is it clearly supported by the Act or rules? Is it necessary to protect buyers? And can it be complied with through the portal without leaving room for subjective interpretation?

If the answer is no, the requirement should be reviewed or withdrawn. Compliance through circulars cannot quietly grow into a second set of rules. Frequent changes to forms, IT processes and documentation requirements create uncertainty for everyone involved – developers, homebuyers, lenders, architects, lawyers and project consultants.

The government should commission an independent audit of MahaRERA’s registration processes, technology contracts, staffing levels, response times and user experience. This audit should examine vendor performance, transparency, procurement compliance, data security and measurable delivery outcomes.

It should not be directed at any specific company unless a proper investigation establishes a specific concern. Claims about individual contractors, including claims of blacklisting elsewhere, cannot be treated as conclusive without official records and should not, by themselves, drive policy decisions.

Technology can reduce delay and discretion. A well-designed portal can flag missing documents, identify inconsistent disclosures, track approvals, provide standardised amendment pathways and publish application-stage timelines. The state may consider engaging specialised technology and process-management firms through transparent procurement, while regulatory decisions remain with MahaRERA.

In today’s world, such processes should be the norm, leaving little scope for discretion at junior levels. Excessive discretion can create inconsistent interpretations, avoidable subjectivity and, at times, coercive practices. The goal should be a lean and accountable institution – not an office where applicants must navigate multiple desks, departments and consultants simply to understand what is required of them.

Recognise Genuine Delays

Another important issue that must be addressed is delays beyond the promoter’s control. Planning authorities, utilities and other public agencies can cause administrative delays that stall projects even when construction is substantially complete.

Delays in MHADA processes can be especially damaging in redevelopment and social-housing projects, where occupation certificates and possession may depend on actions outside the developer’s control. MHADA has acknowledged issues relating to occupation certificates in certain redeveloped colonies and introduced a six-month amnesty arrangement for specified cases in 2024.

Regulatory responses to external supply-chain disruptions also need to be more realistic. Recent reports have highlighted how trade and energy disruptions in the Middle East have placed pressure on tiles, sanitaryware, marble, steel and cement. Gas constraints, for instance, can affect manufacturing and supply timelines.

These events should not automatically excuse delay, nor should they be used as a blanket defence. But MahaRERA should establish a transparent framework for assessing force majeure and government-related delays – one that distinguishes between avoidable project mismanagement and events genuinely beyond a project’s control.

If a public authority fails to fulfil an obligation linked to an OC or social-housing requirement, an automatic compensation order against the promoter may be financially unfair and, in the longer run, may harm buyers as well. The answer is not to deny buyers relief. It is to establish a process that correctly identifies responsibility, clearly records the delay and, where necessary, brings the responsible public agency into the process.

A Time-Bound Reform Plan

We therefore urge the Maharashtra government to constitute a 30-day reform committee comprising former MahaRERA leaders, consumer representatives, planners, legal experts, lenders, technology specialists and developer bodies.

Its mandate should be practical: simplify registration, set timelines for amendments, standardise phase-wise and vertical-registration rules, rationalise circulars, improve portal accountability, and establish a fair mechanism to address delays caused by government agencies or force majeure events.

MahaRERA remains one of Maharashtra’s most important institutions. It has processed more than 52,000 project registrations and over 25,000 complaint orders, demonstrating both its scale and public importance.

If the objective of the Act is to regulate and support the industry while protecting homebuyers, accountability must extend beyond developers alone. Planning authorities and other public agencies are integral stakeholders in the real estate-development process. Bringing their actions, timelines and delays within a suitable RERA-led accountability framework would significantly improve time-bound project delivery in the interests of homebuyers.

It is time for RERA 2.0 – an approach that makes meaningful procedural changes, enables real estate to deliver better outcomes for customers, and allows the sector to function as a stronger economic engine for Maharashtra. Reforming the way MahaRERA functions is not an argument against regulation. It is an argument for faster, clearer and more credible regulation. After all, the housing market cannot adequately serve buyers if compliant projects become unviable before they are completed.

Anil Pharande, Founder & Chairman – Pharande Spaces

Disclaimer: Views expressed above are the author’s own and do not reflect the publication’s views.