Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has rejected a settlement scheme proposed by Parsvnath Developers to resolve years of unenforced Haryana RERA orders across 24 housing projects covering roughly 27,000 dwelling units, calling it “another device to delay” possession and repayment. The Court has demanded the developer deposit Rs 500 crore and submit an acceptable revised proposal, warning it will otherwise appoint a high-powered committee to take the process out of the developer's hands.
This order arises from ongoing execution and contempt proceedings that trace back to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling earlier in 2026 in Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Mohit Khirbat, which held that a homebuyer cannot be compelled to accept possession of a residential unit before the builder has obtained the Occupancy Certificate, and that unfair contractual clauses forcing early possession cannot bar a homebuyer's claim to just compensation.
That ruling has since evolved into a much broader supervisory exercise concerning Parsvnath's stalled projects across Haryana, including its Exotica project in Sector 53, Gurugram. Haryana RERA had passed orders directing possession or refund to thousands of homebuyers, but these orders went largely unenforced for years. One illustrative case cited before the Court involved a homebuyer who paid Rs 1.78 crore for a flat promised for delivery in 2013, and remained without possession or refund even years later.
The Key Question Before the Court
When a real estate regulator's own enforceable orders directing possession or refund go unimplemented for years across tens of thousands of homebuyers, what should a court do when the developer's proposed settlement scheme still leaves the underlying non-compliance unaddressed?
Why the Settlement Proposal Was Rejected
The Supreme Court rejected Parsvnath's proposed settlement scheme outright, describing it as “another device to delay” possession and repayment to homebuyers who have already waited years beyond their promised delivery dates. The Court was also critical of the state RERA authorities themselves, characterising their failure to enforce their own orders against the developer as a form of complicity in the non-enforcement.
This continues a pattern from earlier hearings in the same proceedings, where the Court had issued warrants against the developer's directors, frozen bank accounts, and directed compliance with Haryana RERA orders within a week “or go to jail,” with 12% interest running on the dues owed to homebuyers.
What the Court Has Now Demanded
- The developer must deposit Rs 500 crore as a condition of being given a further opportunity to propose a workable resolution.
- Any revised proposal must actually satisfy the homebuyers across the affected projects, not merely restructure the developer's obligations on paper.
- Failing an acceptable proposal, the Court has indicated it will appoint a high-powered committee to take over supervision of the resolution process, effectively displacing the developer's own control over it.
- State RERA authorities have themselves come under scrutiny for failing to enforce their own possession and refund orders over an extended period.
Why This Order Matters
- It shows the Supreme Court willing to escalate from ordinary compliance directions to real financial and supervisory consequences — deposit demands, frozen accounts, and the threat of a court-appointed committee — when a developer's compliance proves persistently inadequate.
- It highlights a recurring structural problem in real estate regulation: RERA orders directing possession or refund can go unenforced for years without a court's direct, continuing intervention.
- It puts other large developers with similarly stalled projects on notice that settlement proposals seen as delay tactics will be rejected outright, not negotiated around.
- It reinforces the practical value of the underlying Mohit Khirbat ruling on Occupancy Certificates, by showing the lengths to which the Court will go to make that protection meaningful in practice.
What This Means in Practice
For Homebuyers in Stalled Projects
- Track whether the developer meets the Rs 500 crore deposit condition and submits a genuinely satisfactory proposal — failure to do so could trigger appointment of a high-powered committee to take over the resolution process.
- Where a state RERA order in your favour has gone unenforced for an extended period, consider whether escalation to the Supreme Court's continuing supervisory jurisdiction, as in this matter, offers a more effective route than repeated RERA-level enforcement applications.
For Developers Facing Similar RERA Non-Compliance
- Do not propose settlement schemes that merely restructure timelines or obligations without materially addressing the underlying non-compliance — courts are increasingly treating such proposals as delay tactics.
- Anticipate that persistent non-compliance with RERA orders can escalate to asset freezes, personal warrants against directors, and ultimately loss of control over the resolution process to a court-appointed body.
For Real Estate and RERA Practitioners Generally
- Treat this ongoing matter as a live illustration of how the Supreme Court's continuing supervisory jurisdiction can be used to force compliance where state-level regulatory enforcement has failed.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has rejected Parsvnath Developers' proposed settlement scheme for stalled housing projects as a delay tactic.
- The developer has been directed to deposit Rs 500 crore and submit a genuinely acceptable revised proposal to resolve claims across roughly 27,000 dwelling units.
- Failure to do so could result in a high-powered committee being appointed to take over the resolution process from the developer.
- The order continues a pattern of escalating enforcement measures, including frozen bank accounts and warrants against directors, in this ongoing matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. This is an interim order in ongoing execution and contempt proceedings that trace back to the Court's earlier 2026 ruling in Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Mohit Khirbat on Occupancy Certificates and possession. The underlying enforcement proceedings remain live.
The Supreme Court has indicated it will consider appointing a high-powered committee to take over supervision of the resolution process, effectively displacing the developer's own control over how homebuyers' claims are resolved.
Because Haryana RERA had passed orders directing possession or refund to homebuyers years earlier, but these orders went largely unenforced, which the Court treated as a form of complicity in the developer's continued non-compliance.
Conclusion
For homebuyers who have waited years beyond promised delivery dates, this order signals that the Supreme Court is prepared to go well beyond ordinary directions — toward real financial consequences and the prospect of removing the developer from control of the process entirely — when compliance keeps falling short.
Practical takeaway: Where a developer's settlement proposal addresses form rather than substance, argue for its rejection using the language and escalation pattern in this matter — courts are increasingly willing to demand concrete financial commitments rather than accept restructured promises.