A RERA number is not a legality certificate: what registration asks for and what it leaves to you

Rules as of 13 October 2026.

"It has a RERA number" is the most common reassurance in a sales pitch. But a RERA number tells you that a promoter filed an application and that it was registered. It does not tell you that every document in the file is genuine, or that the building is lawful. This explainer reads what the Act asks the promoter to file, where its own text stops, and what recent reports from Kalyan-Dombivli show about the gap. It is general information, not legal advice.

What the Act asks the promoter to file

Section 4(2) of the RERA Act lists what must accompany an application: details of the enterprise, an authenticated copy of the approvals and commencement certificate from the competent authority, the sanctioned plan, layout plan and specifications, and more. Clause (l) adds a declaration, supported by an affidavit signed by the promoter, that he has a legal title to the land with legally valid documents, that the land is free from encumbrances (or what the encumbrances are), and the time within which he will complete the project. It also requires that 70% of the amounts realised from buyers go into a separate scheduled-bank account, to be used only for construction and land cost.

In Maharashtra, MahaRERA Circular No. 28/2021, as reproduced in the Bombay High Court's judgment in Linker Shelter (18 July 2025), requires a legal title report in a set format ("Format A", with an advocate's stamp, listing the flow of title and any litigation) to be uploaded with the application. The court's own reading of these provisions was that they "merely require disclosure of litigations"; it did not say registration confirms title.

Where the Act's own text stops

• Declaration, not certification. Title and encumbrance statements are the promoter's declaration on affidavit. The Act does not say the Authority certifies them.
• A 30-day clock. Section 5(1) tells the Authority to grant or reject within thirty days. Under section 5(2), if it does neither, the project is deemed to be registered.
• After-the-fact remedy. Section 7(1) lets the Authority revoke a registration on a complaint, on its own motion or on the recommendation of the competent authority, where the promoter violates approval conditions, engages in unfair practice or irregularity, or indulges in fraudulent practices. Revocation comes with at least thirty days' written notice (section 7(2)).

I did not find a published MahaRERA statement describing how it checks documents against municipal records, so I do not say what it does or does not do internally. The point is narrower: the Act puts the declaration on the promoter and gives the Authority a power to revoke later.

What registration does give you

It is not worthless. Registration brings the 70% separate-account rule, the disclosures under section 11, a complaint route under section 31, and the refund claim under section 18. Title is special: section 18(2) makes a promoter compensate a buyer for loss caused by a defective title to the land, and says such a claim is not barred by limitation provided under any law. In Linker Shelter the High Court said a title complaint falls under that sub-section, not the section 18(1) right to withdraw.

The Kalyan-Dombivli case: reports, not a court record

I could not access the court orders in this matter, so what follows is from news and legal-news reports and should be read that way. Hindustan Times (12 November 2022) reported that unauthorised buildings in Kalyan-Dombivli were built after developers obtained RERA certificates through fake documents, that MahaRERA revoked the registration of 49 developers, and that a special investigation team froze bank accounts. Real Estate Law Journal reports 65 illegal buildings, a Bombay High Court demolition order of 19 November 2024, and about 6,500 residents facing eviction, with two FIRs registered in September and October 2022. PropNewsTime reports that regularisation applications for 38 buildings were rejected for FSI violations. The counts differ between reports, and I have not verified the role of any agency beyond the police.

A June 2025 report says the High Court, hearing a Dombivli society's plea, observed that RERA registration does not make a building legal, and pointed buyers towards the developer and municipal officers (report). I have not read that order.

A worked example

Illustrative: you pay Rs 45 lakh for a flat in a registered project whose commencement certificate later proves forged. A refund claim with interest at an assumed 11% (SBI's highest MCLR plus 2%, with MCLR assumed at 9%) over three years would add Rs 45,00,000 x 11% x 3 = Rs 14,85,000. On paper you would be owed Rs 59.85 lakh. But a demolished or sealed building has no resale value, and a builder with frozen accounts may not pay. The cheapest protection is before payment.

Checks that registration does not replace

• Ask the municipal corporation's town planning office to confirm the commencement certificate number, date and floors in writing.
• Have an advocate take a title search and read the legal title report on the MahaRERA page.
• Match the sanctioned plan to what is being built on site.
• Check the land records (7/12 extract or property card) yourself.
• Ask which bank account holds the 70% amount.

Why the municipal check matters most

The commencement certificate and sanctioned plan come from the local planning authority, not from MahaRERA. The promoter uploads a copy; the original sits with the municipal body. A copy on a regulator's page and a record in the corporation's file are two different things, and only the second proves the permission exists. Our separate note on IOD, CC and OC explains what each certificate is; here the point is only that the number on the copy should be confirmed at source.

Mistakes to avoid

• Treating a RERA number as proof of title.
• Relying on copies sent by the broker.
• Paying heavily at the start when the project is not yet approved on the ground.