REAT Appeal Procedure — Section 44 Appeals to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (All States, 2026)

Section 44(1) of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by any direction, decision or order made by the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer may appeal to the REAT. Three threshold points:

1. Final orders are appealable; interim orders generally are not. REAT will entertain appeals against final adjudicatory orders. Interim directions (status quo, no marketing, etc.) are usually challenged in writ proceedings before the High Court under Article 226, not before REAT.
2. 'Person aggrieved' is read broadly. Allottee, promoter, association of allottees, third-party with locus (e.g. a bank with first charge over the project) all qualify. Government departments occasionally appeal where State RERA orders affect tax collection or land revenue recovery.
3. The appeal lies against the order of the Authority (or AO), not against the underlying contract. A REAT appeal is not a fresh first-instance proceeding — it's a review-with-rehearing of the order under challenge.

Section 44(2) prescribes 60 days from the date of receipt of the order for filing the appeal. The proviso allows the Tribunal to condone delay where 'sufficient cause' is shown — but this is interpreted strictly.

What counts as sufficient cause:

• Illness of party / counsel, supported by medical evidence.
• Bona fide pursuit of a parallel remedy (e.g. application for review before the Authority) that was eventually rejected — only where the parallel remedy was filed within time.
• Delay in receipt of certified copy where the party applied for it within the statutory period.

What does NOT count:

• Counsel's negligence simpliciter.
• 'Internal approvals' delay in the promoter entity.
• Waiting to assess settlement options.

The REAT in most states has tracked the Supreme Court's restrictive approach in State of Nagaland v Lipok AO (2005) and State of Bihar v Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Association (2008). Delay beyond 60+30 = 90 days is rarely condoned without exceptional reasons.

Critical practical point: the 60 days runs from receipt of the certified copy, not from the date of the order on the file. Always apply for certified copy on the day the order is uploaded — most state RERA portals now upload orders within 7-10 days of pronouncement.

Section 43(5) of the Act is the most important procedural provision in REAT practice. It states that no appeal by a promoter shall be entertained without the promoter first depositing with the Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the penalty, or such higher amount as may be determined by the Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is heard.

Key clarifications from the Supreme Court (M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd v State of UP (2021) 6 SCC 1):

1. 30% is a floor, not a ceiling. The Tribunal can direct higher deposit (some Maharashtra REAT benches routinely direct 50-100% for repeat-offender promoters).
2. 'Total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation' means the entire principal + interest awarded by the Authority, not 30% of it. So the choice for the promoter is: (a) deposit 30% of the penalty alone (if the order is purely penal under Section 63), OR (b) deposit 100% of the awarded principal+interest+compensation (if the award is in favour of the allottee), OR (c) such higher amount as the Tribunal may direct.
3. This applies only to promoter-appellants. Allottee-appellants are not required to make any pre-deposit.
4. Deposit form — by demand draft in favour of the REAT Registrar or by online transfer. Cash deposits are not accepted.
5. Refund on success — deposit is refunded with interest if the appeal is allowed; otherwise it stands released to the allottee in execution.

This pre-deposit requirement has been the single most consequential procedural lever in RERA practice — it deters frivolous promoter appeals and unlocks substantial sums for allottees to fund continued litigation.

Each state REAT has its own form and fee schedule under its REAT Rules. Approximate 2026 fees:

• Maharashtra REAT — appeal form per the Maharashtra REAT Rules; fee ₹5,000 per appeal.
• UP REAT — appeal form per UP REAT Rules; fee ₹1,000 per appeal.
• Karnataka REAT — fee ₹1,000.
• Tamil Nadu REAT — fee ₹1,000.
• Haryana REAT — fee ₹1,000.
• Gujarat REAT — fee ₹5,000.

Standard appeal documents:

1. Memorandum of appeal in the prescribed form.
2. Certified copy of the impugned order.
3. Vakalatnama of the appellant's counsel.
4. Memo of parties.
5. Index of documents.
6. Pre-deposit proof (DD / bank receipt) for promoter-appellants.
7. Application for condonation if filed beyond 60 days.
8. Stay application (typically separate) if interim relief is sought.

Hearing pattern:

• First listing: 4-6 weeks after admission.
• Notice to respondent: 21 days to file reply.
• Arguments: usually 1-2 hearings of 30-60 minutes each.
• Order: most state REATs are reasonably prompt, averaging 6-9 months from filing to final order.

Stay during pendency — REAT can stay the operation of the Authority's order. Stay is more likely if pre-deposit is made promptly and the prima facie case is strong. For purely interest-rate disputes (where the principle of refund is settled but the rate is contested), stay is rarely granted.

Section 58 of the Act provides for a further appeal to the High Court within 60 days of the REAT order, but only on a substantial question of law. The Tribunal's findings of fact are final.

Key points:

1. Locus — same as before REAT (any aggrieved party).
2. Stamp and procedure — under the relevant High Court Rules (writ-petition style memorandum with the order under challenge annexed).
3. Pre-deposit — Section 43(5) governs Authority → REAT appeals only; the further appeal to HC is not subject to the same statutory pre-deposit. But High Courts have, in their discretion, sometimes directed conditional admission with deposit.
4. 'Substantial question of law' — interpreted in line with Section 100 CPC and Article 133 jurisprudence. Pure factual re-appreciation will not be entertained. Examples of substantial questions of law that have been admitted: interpretation of Section 18 (refund formula), interpretation of Section 2(zk) (definition of promoter), interpretation of force majeure clauses, applicability of Section 14(1)(ii) (carpet area tolerance), etc.
5. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 — the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters (supra) clarified that despite the statutory appeal under Section 58, a writ under Article 226 remains maintainable in limited circumstances (jurisdictional questions, violation of natural justice, etc.). Bombay, Karnataka and Delhi HCs have admitted writs in such circumstances.