A pan-India homebuyers’ body has approached the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs (MoHUA), raising concerns over the functioning of conciliation forums established by the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities (RERAs) across several states.
The Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) has called on the Ministry to take immediate action, urging it to issue guidelines that would ensure the independence and impartiality of such forums across all states. It has also requested a suspension of all conciliation forum activities until these guidelines are in place.
The association, for instance, has pointed out irregularities in the Conciliation Forum constituted by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA). In a letter addressed to the ministry, the FPCE has alleged that the forum is heavily skewed in favour of developers, compromising the rights and interests of homebuyers.
The homebuyers’ association has raised issues regarding the very constitution of the MahaRERA Conciliation Forum, arguing that it oversteps the powers granted under section 32 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The section allows for the promotion of dispute settlement forums by consumer or promoter associations, but the FPCE asserts that MahaRERA has taken the authority into its own hands by not only constituting the forum but also playing an active role in it. The Secretary of MahaRERA currently chairs the forum, which the FPCE claims is a clear conflict of interest.
“The forum’s composition itself is evidence of its bias. With only one consumer organization represented compared to three developer organizations, and an individual representative ratio of two to six in favor of builders, the forum’s structure appears to favor developers,” Abhay Upadhyay, president, FPCE, told ET. The association also pointed out the lack of transparency in the selection criteria for consumer organizations, suggesting that these may have been handpicked to align with the forum’s pro-developer stance.
The FPCE alleges that complainants are being pressured to engage with the conciliation forum. Those who refuse and choose to pursue their complaints directly with MahaRERA are reportedly met with delays and postponements, with hearings being dragged out over the years. “This situation leaves complainants with little choice but to settle disputes through the forum, where they are unlikely to receive fair treatment,” said Upadhyay, who is also a member of the RERA Central Advisory Committee (CAC).
The FPCE has also criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the forum’s proceedings.
According to Upadhyay, there is no publicly available information on the outcomes of the cases handled by the forum, nor on how many of its orders have been enforced against non-compliant developers. The association contends that this opacity undermines the very purpose of RERA, which is to bring transparency and accountability to the real estate sector.
Moreover, the FPCE has expressed concerns about the broader implications of this forum, pointing out that once a case enters the conciliation process, it cannot be revisited in full by MahaRERA, even if the builder fails to comply with the conciliation orders. This, the association argues, further tilts the balance in favour of developers, who can easily bypass stricter regulatory oversight by engaging in the conciliation process.
In addition to its suggestions regarding conciliation forums, the FPCE has also recommended that a cooling-off period be instituted for RERA officials, barring them from joining real estate firms or associations for five years after leaving their positions.
The association’s concerns have been exacerbated by the fact that the former Chairman of MahaRERA, under whose tenure the conciliation forum was established, has since joined a developers’ organization. This has raised questions about the forum’s original intent, with the FPCE alleging that it was designed to protect the interests of developers rather than homebuyers.