In a significant development with far-reaching implications for real estate regulation, the Supreme Court of India has stayed a December 2025 judgment of the Orissa High Court that had excluded a major housing project on the outskirts of Bhubaneswar from the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The apex court’s intervention has reopened a critical legal question: does the issuance of a completion certificate alone suffice to take a project outside RERA, even when occupancy and safety clearances are missing?
The case concerns a large residential project located at Pahala, near Bhubaneswar. Homebuyers had approached the Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) alleging regulatory violations by the promoter. However, the promoter challenged OREAT’s orders before the Orissa High Court.
In a common judgment dated December 22, 2025, the High Court sided with the promoter and set aside the tribunal’s orders. It held that the project stood completed in 2015, prior to the enforcement of the Odisha RERA in May 2017, and therefore complaints filed by the allottees were not maintainable under the Act.
The High Court relied heavily on the completion certificate issued in 2015, holding that the project fell outside the scope of RERA.
The Supreme Court has now stayed the Orissa High Court’s judgment, effectively suspending its findings and reviving uncertainty regarding the project’s regulatory status. While granting the stay, the apex court noted the distinction between a completion certificate and an occupancy certificate, a distinction that lies at the heart of the controversy.
The High Court had earlier ruled that absence of a fire safety clearance or an occupancy certificate did not render the project “ongoing” under RERA. By staying this interpretation, the Supreme Court has left the matter open for deeper judicial scrutiny.
Completion Certificate vs Occupancy Certificate: The Legal Fault Line
Real estate experts say the stay order signals the Supreme Court’s intent to examine whether formal completion certificates can override substantive safety and habitability requirements.
According to real estate expert Bimalendu Pradhan, the stay is a crucial turning point. He observed that the High Court had adopted a promoter-friendly interpretation, whereas the Supreme Court appears inclined to consider whether consumer rights and safety norms were diluted.
He explained that a completion certificate is typically issued by an architect or local authority certifying structural completion, whereas an occupancy certificate confirms that the building is fit for habitation, having complied with fire safety, civic infrastructure, and statutory norms.
Consumer Protection and Safety Compliance Under the Scanner
Property law specialist Rashmi Sahu noted that the distinction between completion and occupancy certificates has always been contentious. She said that by staying the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court has sent a strong signal that procedural compliance cannot be brushed aside when determining whether a project is truly complete.
She added that fire safety approvals and civic clearances are not mere technicalities, but essential safeguards for residents, emergency responders, and the public at large.
Allottees’ Argument: Project Still Ongoing
In the present case, the project allottees argued that the project cannot be treated as complete, despite the 2015 completion certificate, because:
• The promoter applied for a revised layout plan in 2019
• The project does not have a fire safety certificate
• An occupancy certificate has never been issued
On this basis, the allottees contended that the project should be treated as an ongoing project under RERA, making the promoter accountable to regulatory oversight and consumer remedies.
Implications for Pre-2017 Projects Across Odisha
Legal analysts warn that the Supreme Court’s stay introduces fresh uncertainty for developers, particularly those with projects completed before May 2017 but lacking occupancy certificates.
“If the Supreme Court ultimately holds that such projects are still ongoing, RERA’s reach could expand dramatically across Odisha and beyond,” Pradhan observed.
Such a ruling could expose developers to registration requirements, penalties, compensation claims, and mandatory compliance obligations, even for projects long claimed to be completed.
A Case with National Significance
Though arising from Odisha, the dispute has nationwide relevance, as similar issues exist across several states where projects received completion certificates before RERA but never obtained lawful occupancy approvals.
The Supreme Court’s final verdict is expected to clarify whether formal documentation alone can defeat consumer protection, or whether habitability and safety standards must be satisfied to escape RERA oversight.
Until then, the regulatory status of the Pahala project — and many like it — remains uncertain.
