MahaRERA Conciliation Forum: a faster route than litigation for Mumbai homebuyers

For Mumbai homebuyers in dispute with their developer, the natural reflex is to assume that the only route is a full MahaRERA adjudication or, worse, a civil suit. Both routes take time, money, and a tolerance for procedure that most buyers run out of by the second hearing. The MahaRERA Conciliation and Dispute Resolution Forum offers a third option that is structured into the RERA Act itself but is often overlooked. According to the MahaRERA portal, the Forum is meant to resolve disputes amicably, save cost and time, and produce a settlement that is legally binding once signed. The numbers from earlier coverage suggest it works often enough to be worth taking seriously.

What is the MahaRERA Conciliation Forum?

The MahaRERA Conciliation and Dispute Resolution Forum is an alternate dispute resolution mechanism set up under Section 32(g) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It was established through MahaRERA Circular 15 of 2018 dated January 29, 2018, and operates through Benches that include representatives from consumer associations like the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat and from promoter associations. The Forum hears disputes between allottees and promoters and aims to broker mutual settlements without formal adjudication.

The Forum's procedural framework was further refined through Circular 31 of 2021 dated May 18, 2021, and Circular 38 of 2021 dated November 8, 2021. The procedural circulars set timelines for hearings, define how settlement terms are recorded, and specify how matters that fail to settle are referred back to MahaRERA for adjudication.

The Forum is not a court. The conciliators do not adjudicate or determine legal rights. Their role is to facilitate communication between the parties and help them arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement. That distinction matters, because it shapes what the Forum can and cannot do for a buyer.

How does the conciliation process actually work?

The conciliation process at MahaRERA starts when a buyer files a complaint and either party requests, or MahaRERA refers, the matter to the Conciliation Forum. The other party is intimated through SMS and email and must confirm willingness to participate. Once both parties consent, the buyer pays the conciliation request fee and a Conciliation Bench is allocated based on availability.

The Forum then conducts hearings, typically three over a 45-day window. If the parties reach a settlement, the Bench records the proceeding and forwards the signed settlement terms to MahaRERA, which records them in the presence of the parties and passes a final order. If conciliation fails, the matter is referred back to MahaRERA for regular adjudication.

The procedural circulars from 2021 set time bounds on the Forum's work. If the matter is not progressing towards settlement, it must be closed and referred back within 60 days. If progress is being made but settlement terms cannot be finalised within 60 days, the Forum can request an additional 30 days from the MahaRERA Secretary. The structure is designed to prevent conciliation from becoming a delay tactic.

When should a buyer choose conciliation over adjudication?

Conciliation works best when the underlying dispute is about money, timeline, or possession terms, and when both parties are still in a working relationship. If the developer has gone silent, has started liquidating, or is openly hostile, conciliation rarely produces results. If the developer is trying to preserve the project, settle outstanding allottee claims, and avoid reputational damage from a public adjudication, conciliation often produces faster outcomes.

The cost equation also matters. When MahaRERA refers a matter to conciliation, no separate fee is payable for the conciliators because the cost is borne by MahaRERA. Compared to the costs of multiple adjudication hearings, appellate appeals, and the eventual potential High Court route, the conciliation route is materially cheaper for most buyers.

For our broader take on what RERA does for buyer protection across India, the earlier piece on RERA benefits for home buyers in India sets useful context.

What kinds of disputes does the Forum handle?

The Forum handles disputes between promoters and allottees that fall under the RERA Act, 2016, and the related rules and regulations. The most common dispute categories include possession delays, refund claims under Section 18, interest claims for delay, complaints about plan modifications without consent, and disputes over carpet area discrepancies.

Disputes that fall outside the RERA framework, including title disputes, criminal complaints, and matters before the National Company Law Tribunal, are not within the Forum's scope. A pure refund-with-interest claim where the project has been substantially abandoned is also a poor candidate for conciliation, because the developer typically has no incentive or capacity to negotiate.

For buyers whose dispute mixes RERA-eligible elements with broader civil matters, the practical approach is often to pursue the RERA portion through MahaRERA and the broader portion through other channels. The Forum can resolve the RERA portion in parallel.

What is the role of advocates in conciliation?

Advocates are not barred from attending Forum proceedings, but the conciliation process is structured to be informal and party-centric. The conciliators expect both the allottee and the respondent developer to be present and actively participate, because the outcome depends on mutual understanding. Advocates can advise their clients during the proceedings but are typically not the primary speakers.

This is a meaningful difference from adjudication, where advocates often dominate the hearing. In conciliation, the buyer's own narrative of the dispute and willingness to negotiate matter more than legal argumentation. The conciliators are guided by principles of objectivity, fairness, and justice, and pay attention to the rights and obligations of the parties along with usages of the trade and the circumstances of the dispute.

For complex disputes involving large monetary claims or commercial structures, having an advocate present makes sense. For simpler disputes, many buyers handle their own conciliation effectively without legal representation.

How binding is a conciliation settlement?

A conciliation settlement, once reduced to writing and signed by both parties, is binding and enforceable. The settlement terms are forwarded to MahaRERA, which records them in the presence of the parties and passes an order accordingly. The resulting order has the same enforcement weight as any MahaRERA order, including the ability to be enforced like a court decree.

If either party fails to comply with the settlement terms, the other party can approach MahaRERA, which can enforce the agreed terms. A subsequent complaint to MahaRERA on the same subject would also be considered in light of the prior conciliation terms. The combined effect is that conciliation settlements are not optional commitments. They have legal teeth.

This is one of the most underappreciated features of the Forum. Many buyers assume that an out-of-court settlement is weaker than a tribunal order. Under the MahaRERA framework, a settlement recorded by MahaRERA after Forum proceedings has the force of an enforceable order.

What is the success rate of MahaRERA conciliation?

According to coverage of an earlier MahaRERA stakeholder seminar, the Forum has reported success rates around 79 percent on referred cases where both parties consented to conciliation. As of an early reporting period, of 264 requests received, 135 had received consent from developers, 69 cases had concluded amicably through conciliation, and 31 cases were still under hearing. The pattern suggests that when both parties show up willing to negotiate, settlement happens often.

The reported success rate is high enough that several stakeholders have argued for the Conciliation Forum model to be adopted in cities other than Mumbai and Pune as well. The constraint has historically been the availability of trained conciliators and consumer association partners willing to support the Forum's work.

For a buyer evaluating whether conciliation is worth attempting, the success rate is one input among several. The other inputs include the developer's likely posture, the size of the claim, and the buyer's tolerance for the longer adjudication route as a fallback.

What about new disclosure norms and the QR code requirement?

MahaRERA's broader regulatory programme has continued through 2025 with several disclosure norms aimed at improving buyer-side information access. Order 46C of 2025 specified norms for QR codes and font size of MahaRERA registration numbers in advertisements. The order is intended to make registration information more visible to prospective buyers at the point of marketing rather than requiring portal lookups after the fact.

These disclosure norms sit alongside the conciliation framework as part of MahaRERA's broader buyer protection mandate. [LAWYER REVIEW] The combined direction is towards higher transparency at the marketing stage and faster resolution at the dispute stage. For buyers, the implication is that the cost of doing due diligence at the front end has come down, and the cost of resolving disputes at the back end has come down as well.

For the broader story on what to look for during pre-purchase verification, the earlier piece on essential property documents and verification still applies.

How does Mumbai's framework compare with other state RERAs?

Mumbai's MahaRERA framework includes the Conciliation Forum as a structured alternative dispute resolution route, which is more developed than equivalent mechanisms in some other state RERAs. Karnataka's K-RERA, for example, relies more heavily on direct adjudication, though it has stepped up enforcement through circulars including the January 2026 quarterly progress report penalty regime. Telangana's TGRERA has been active on direct penalty orders against named builders.

The variation across state RERAs reflects how each state has prioritised different aspects of the RERA Act's enforcement toolkit. Maharashtra's emphasis on conciliation has produced one of the more buyer-friendly resolution channels in India. The model is being studied in other states.

For Mumbai buyers, this comparative context matters mainly as a reminder that the Conciliation Forum is a real institutional advantage worth using. Buyers in other states often do not have an equivalent built-in option.

What should a Mumbai buyer do before approaching the Forum?

A Mumbai buyer considering the Conciliation Forum should first assemble all transaction documents, including the registered agreement for sale, the allotment letter, payment records, communication with the developer, and any plan modification notices received. Second, they should articulate the specific outcome they want, whether possession, refund with interest, compensation, or specific performance. Third, they should assess whether the developer is likely to engage in good faith negotiation or whether direct adjudication is the better starting point.

Filing a complaint on the MahaRERA portal is a separate first step from being referred to conciliation. Buyers can request that their complaint be referred to the Conciliation Forum as part of the filing, but the actual referral depends on MahaRERA's process and the developer's willingness to participate. Once both parties consent, the conciliation pathway begins.

If you are a Mumbai buyer in dispute with your developer and are unsure whether to pursue conciliation or direct adjudication, write to us. We are tracking how the Conciliation Forum is performing in 2026 and what kinds of cases are converting most reliably. Let's chat.