The Judicial Mandate for Effective Enforcement
The evolution of the real estate regulatory environment in India has reached a critical juncture in 2025, specifically regarding the transition from theoretical adjudications to practical enforcement mechanisms. For nearly a decade, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, functioned primarily as a forum for the determination of rights, yet the subsequent realization of monetary awards remained a persistent challenge for allottees. This gap between the pronouncement of an order and its actual execution led to numerous paper victories, where homebuyers possessed favorable judgments for refunds, interest, or compensation but lacked the coercive tools to compel developers to liquidate their obligations.
The historical reliance on Section 40(1) of the Act, which permits the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue through the District Collector, often resulted in administrative stagnation as revenue authorities prioritized broader state-level tax collections over individual regulatory awards. However, the legal environment changed fundamentally on 18 November 2025, when the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority issued Circular No. 51/2025, introducing a rigorous Standard Operating Procedure for enforcement that integrates the powers of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, into the regulatory framework.
Procedural Mechanics of the 2025 Maharashtra Framework
The catalyst for this structural reform was a decisive judicial intervention by the Honorable Bombay High Court in Mayur L. Desai vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025: BHC-OS:11784. In its order dated 6 October 2025, the Court addressed the systemic failure of the existing recovery machinery and mandated that the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority must execute its orders as if they were decrees of a principal civil court.
This judicial directive forced a re-examination of the intersection between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically regarding the application of Order XXI, which governs the execution of decrees and orders. The Court emphasized that the authority is not merely an administrative body but possesses the inherent characteristics of an executing court when addressing non-compliance. Consequently, Circular No. 51/2025 provides a time-bound and standardized pathway for recovery, effectively bridging the distance between the regulatory determination and the physical collection of funds.
The Standard Operating Procedure establishes a clear timeline for the triggering of execution proceedings. Every award of interest, penalty, or compensation is subject to a mandatory sixty-day compliance window from the date the original order is issued. This period serves as a grace period during which the promoter is expected to voluntarily satisfy the award.
If the promoter fails to remit the payment within this timeframe, the allottee gains the right to file an online non-compliance application. Once a non-compliance application is filed, the authority is obligated to list the matter for a hearing within four weeks. This expedited timeline is designed to prevent the administrative delays that historically allowed promoters to dissipate assets while ignoring existing liabilities.
Mandatory Asset Disclosure and Coercive Measures
During the initial hearing of the non-compliance application, the authority investigates the reasons for default. If the failure to comply is established on a prima facie basis, the authority grants a final reasonable period for the promoter to settle the dues.
If the promoter continues to err, the authority invokes the coercive powers of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically targeting the financial transparency of the developer. The most significant shift is the mandatory requirement for the promoter to file an affidavit of assets as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code.
This affidavit must provide a comprehensive disclosure of all movable and immovable properties, bank accounts, investments, and receivables. Failure to cooperate leads to further judicial escalation, where the authority may order the personal attendance and examination of the promoter to extract information regarding their financial means.
The 2025 framework also introduces the ultimate coercive measure: civil imprisonment. The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has acknowledged that it does not possess its own civil prison facilities, necessitating a procedural bridge to the civil courts. If a promoter willfully defaults on the payment or refuses to comply with asset disclosure mandates, the matter is referred to the principal civil court of the respective area.
Pursuant to Order XXI Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the civil court can order the detention of the defaulting promoter in a civil prison for a term of up to three months. This provision addresses the systemic issue of wilful evasion, where promoters claim a lack of liquidity to satisfy homeowner claims despite possessing significant personal wealth.
Jurisdictional Divergence and the Decree Debate
However, the national environment for real estate enforcement remains fractured due to a significant jurisdictional divergence from the Karnataka High Court. In a landmark ruling on 31 October 2025, in the case of Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. vs. Snil Pathiyam Veetil, Writ Petition No. 17821 of 2025 (GM-CPC), the Karnataka High Court held that orders passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority are not decrees within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Karnataka High Court reasoned that a decree requires an adjudication arising from a suit commenced by a plaint in a civil court, whereas regulatory proceedings are initiated via complaints before a specialized tribunal. Consequently, the Karnataka High Court ruled that homebuyers cannot directly approach civil courts with execution petitions for regulatory orders, as such orders must be enforced primarily as arrears of land revenue through revenue authorities like the Tahsildar under Section 40(1). This ruling stands in stark contrast to the Bombay High Court’s directive, which treats the authority’s orders as deemed decrees that invite the application of Order XXI.
Conclusion
The issuance of Circular No. 51/2025 and the accompanying judicial directives represent a fundamental restructuring of real estate enforcement in Maharashtra. The authority has transformed regulatory awards from paper victories into practically enforceable decrees by moving beyond the administrative inertia of the revenue recovery route and embracing the judicial rigor of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The mandatory sixty-day timeline, the institutionalization of asset disclosure under Order XXI Rule 41, and the possibility of civil imprisonment collectively create a more accountable and transparent environment for the real estate sector. While jurisdictional conflicts regarding the technical definition of a decree persist across different High Courts, the 2025 framework provides a robust template for the transition of regulatory authorities from passive adjudicators to active executors of justice. For homeowners, this marks the beginning of an era where regulatory protection is as tangible as the properties they invest in.
In real estate and M&A transactions, ROFO clauses in shareholders’ agreements acquire sharper enforceability relevance in light of MAHARERA’s strengthened deemed decree-based recovery framework.
