Karnataka REAT on ALN Arambh: Which Forum Hears Dues, Compensation and Amenity Claims

A Bengaluru buyer booked a two-bedroom flat in ALN Buildtech's ALN Arambh project for Rs 33.50 lakh under an agreement for sale dated 28 September 2023, with possession due in April 2024 plus a six-month grace period. At inspection, the buyer listed problems from balcony railing height to missing fire sprinklers, and said only one key had been handed over. K-RERA ordered the builder to fix the safety issues, but also ordered the buyer to pay Rs 2.45 lakh still outstanding. On 29 September 2026, the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld that order and drew a line every complainant should understand: which forum hears which claim.

The ruling is in Geethanjali M. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ALN Buildtech, Appeal No. (K-REAT) 114 of 2025. We read the tribunal's order, published with a LiveLaw report on 14 October 2026. This guide explains the decision and how Bengaluru buyers can route their claims. It is buyer guidance on a reported order, not legal advice.

The short answer. The tribunal, comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N., dismissed the buyer's appeal and confirmed K-RERA's order of 18 July 2025. Relying on the Supreme Court's Newtech Promoters decision, it said refunds and interest for delayed possession are for the Authority, while compensation that needs an inquiry is exclusively for the Adjudicating Officer under Sections 71 and 72, and common amenity grievances go through the apartment owners' association or another competent forum. The trade-off: filing everything in one complaint feels simpler, but it can leave part of your claim in the wrong forum, so split money, compensation and common area issues before you file.

What did K-RERA order in July 2025?

Something for both sides. According to the report, K-RERA partly allowed the buyer's complaint on 18 July 2025. It directed the buyer to pay the outstanding Rs 2.45 lakh within 30 days, and directed ALN Buildtech to execute the sale deed and hand over possession within 15 days of payment, after rectifying the balcony railing height and other major safety deviations. It left grievances about common amenities to be pursued through the apartment owners' association or another competent forum.

What did the buyer seek on appeal?

Money for missing fittings, delay and rent. The report says the buyer sought Rs 10,75,684 towards missing flat-level amenities, Rs 3,61,884 as delayed possession interest calculated up to 22 April 2025, Rs 80,449 towards rental losses, and compensation for harassment. The buyer argued that K-RERA had wrongly treated individual flat deficiencies as common amenity issues and had misread the agreement by making possession conditional on paying the outstanding amount.

The builder denied the allegations, said construction complied with the agreed specifications, and said the buyer had not cleared the outstanding consideration despite being asked to complete registration.

What defects did the buyer raise at inspection?

A long list. According to the report, the buyer alleged inadequate balcony railing height and missing false ceilings, teak wood door frames, fire sprinklers, power backup and other promised fixtures. The buyer also alleged that the builder provided only one key for inspection while withholding the remaining keys and the occupancy certificate, which prevented the buyer from taking possession.

K-RERA's order did not ignore these points. It required the builder to rectify the balcony railing height and other major safety deviations before handover. What it did not do was award money for every item on the list in that complaint, and the tribunal saw no reason to interfere. The practical lesson is that a defect can be fixed through one order while compensation for it is pursued in another forum, so a buyer should be clear about which outcome each claim is seeking.

How did the tribunal split jurisdiction?

Along the line drawn by the Supreme Court. The order explains that Sections 71 and 72 can give the impression that only an Adjudicating Officer can grant relief under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, and then sets out the Supreme Court's clarification in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, (2021) 18 SCC 1. In the tribunal's words, "when it comes to refund of amount and interest thereon or directing payment of interest for the delayed delivery of possession or penalty and interest thereon, it is the Authority which is having power."

It continued: "when it comes to relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 12,14,18 and 19, the Adjudicating Officer exclusively has power to determine as per Sections 71 and 72." Because some of the buyer's claims needed an inquiry by the Adjudicating Officer and others concerned common amenities, the tribunal held that K-RERA had rightly directed the buyer to approach the association or another competent forum. Our report on a K-RERA Adjudicating Officer awarding compensation under Section 72 shows the other side of that line.

The order also records the Supreme Court's point that where a case is a simple one for refund of an amount on demand under Sections 18(1) and 19(4), or for breach of Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, the jurisdiction vests with the Authority. So the dividing question is not which section a claim falls under, but whether deciding it needs an inquiry into compensation. A buyer framing a complaint can use that test to decide what to file where.

Why did the buyer still have to pay Rs 2.45 lakh?

Because the amount due was more than the last instalment. According to the report, the tribunal examined the agreement and noted that the final 3 percent, amounting to Rs 1,00,500, was payable on registration or possession, whichever came earlier. The buyer still owed Rs 2.45 lakh, which exceeded that contractual final instalment. That undercut the argument that possession had been wrongly made conditional on payment.

The report also records what happened while the appeal was pending. On 13 July 2026, the buyer expressed willingness to clear the outstanding amount and complete registration, and on 27 July 2026 the builder told the tribunal that the sale deed had been executed and produced a copy. Finding no grounds to interfere, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The report notes that the buyer appeared as a party-in-person, while Advocate I.S. Devaiah appeared for K-RERA and Advocate Shashikala S. for ALN Buildtech. Representing yourself is allowed, but this case shows how much turns on technical questions such as which forum has power over which relief. A short consultation on forum and framing before filing can save months.

Where should common amenity complaints go?

Through the association, or another competent forum, according to this order. Issues that affect all owners, such as building-wide facilities, were treated as matters for the apartment owners' association. That is consistent with a theme in another Karnataka ruling we covered today, where the tribunal looked to the allottees as a group to give or withhold consent to plan changes; see our report on the SJR Palazza City revised plan ruling.

For an individual buyer, this means two things. Keep flat-specific problems, such as fittings inside your unit, separate from building-wide issues. And if the association has not yet been formed, find out when it will be, because this order sends common amenity grievances in that direction.

What should Bengaluru buyers do before filing a complaint?

Sort your claims first. A refund or delay interest claim, a compensation claim that needs an inquiry, and a common amenity grievance can each belong in a different place. Clear any amount genuinely due under the agreement, or put in writing why it is not due, because an outstanding balance can weigh against you. And keep the inspection record, the keys handed over and the dates, since those details shaped this case.

It also helps to check the payment schedule in the agreement against what the builder is demanding at possession. Here, the tribunal compared the final 3 percent instalment with the larger amount still owed. A buyer who reconciles every payment against the schedule before inspection day is better placed to argue either way.

A seven-point checklist before you file with K-RERA

1. Reconcile every payment you have made against the agreement's payment schedule.
2. Pay any amount clearly due, or record in writing why you dispute it.
3. List flat-level defects separately from building-wide common amenity issues.
4. Put refund or delay interest claims before the Authority.
5. Put compensation claims that need an inquiry before the Adjudicating Officer.
6. Raise common amenity grievances through the apartment owners' association, or find the right forum.
7. Keep inspection notes, photographs, key handover records and dates.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka REAT decide in the ALN Arambh case?

On 29 September 2026 it dismissed the buyer's appeal and confirmed K-RERA's order of 18 July 2025, which directed the buyer to pay Rs 2.45 lakh within 30 days and the builder to execute the sale deed and hand over possession after rectifying major safety deviations.

Who decides compensation claims under RERA in Karnataka?

Relying on the Supreme Court's Newtech decision, the tribunal said the Authority has power over refunds and interest for delayed possession, while adjudging compensation and interest on it under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 lies exclusively with the Adjudicating Officer under Sections 71 and 72.

Where should common amenity complaints be raised?

In this case, K-RERA left grievances about common amenities to be pursued through the apartment owners' association or another competent legal forum, and the tribunal held that the Authority had rightly directed the buyer to file such complaints through the association or that forum.

Why was the buyer asked to pay before possession?

The report says the tribunal found the final 3 percent instalment of Rs 1,00,500 was due on registration or possession, whichever came earlier, but the buyer still owed Rs 2.45 lakh, more than that instalment. The sale deed was later executed in July 2026.

Last updated 2026-11-04. PropNewz Team.