RERA Penalty Sections 59–68: Agent, Promoter & Allottee Liability Compared

Why the Penalty Framework Decides Your Exposure

Section 66 is the provision every registered intermediary should know by heart. If you fail to comply with an order or direction of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, you face imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine that may extend to 5% of the estimated cost of the real estate project, or both. That is not a clerical penalty. It is criminal liability attached to your registration.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, which took effect on 7 May 2026, did not touch Section 66. Many brokers assumed the amendment softened the whole penalty regime. It did not. The change was surgical, hitting one section and leaving agent and promoter liability fully intact.

Understanding which sections moved and which stayed frozen is the difference between advising a client correctly and giving them a dangerous half-truth. This guide lays out the full matrix from Section 59 through 68.

The Full Penalty Matrix: Sections 59 to 68

The table below covers each penalty section, who it binds, the default it punishes, and the position before and after Jan Vishwas 2026.

Section 59 (Promoter): Non-registration of a project under Section 3. Penalty up to 10% of project cost; continued default adds imprisonment up to 3 years or further fine up to 10%, or both. Unchanged.

Section 60 (Promoter): False information or contravention of Section 4. Fine up to 5% of project cost. Unchanged.

Section 61 (Promoter): Contravention of any other provision. Fine up to 5% of project cost. Unchanged.

Section 62 (Agent): Contravention of Sections 9 or 10. Fine of Rs 10,000 per day during default, up to 5% of cost of plot or building. Unchanged.

Section 63 (Promoter): Failure to comply with Authority orders. Daily penalty up to 5% of project cost. Unchanged.

Section 64 (Promoter): Failure to comply with Appellate Tribunal orders. Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to 5% daily, or both. Unchanged.

Section 65 (Agent): Failure to comply with Authority orders. Daily penalty up to 5% of project cost. Unchanged.

Section 66 (Agent): Failure to comply with Appellate Tribunal orders. Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine up to 5% of project cost, or both. Unchanged.

Section 67 (Allottee): Failure to comply with Authority orders. Daily penalty up to 5% of cost. Unchanged.

Section 68 (Allottee): Failure to comply with Appellate Tribunal orders. Previously imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine up to 10% of property cost, or both. After 7 May 2026: imprisonment removed, monetary penalty up to 10% of property cost retained.

What Actually Changed Under Section 68

Section 68 is the only penalty provision Jan Vishwas 2026 amended. Before the amendment, an allottee who ignored an Appellate Tribunal order could be jailed for up to a year alongside a fine of up to 10% of the apartment, plot, or building cost. The amendment struck the imprisonment limb. The monetary penalty stayed exactly where it was, at up to 10% of property cost.

The logic is straightforward. Allottees are buyers, often individual consumers, and Parliament decided that locking them up for non-compliance at the appellate stage was disproportionate. The financial deterrent remains real. A buyer who defies a Tribunal order can still be hit hard in the wallet.

For a property advisor, this matters when you counsel a client through a dispute. The criminal threat that once hung over an obstinate allottee at the Tribunal level is gone. The cost exposure is not. You can model that exposure using a RERA penalty calculator when explaining worst-case figures to a client.

What Stayed Exactly the Same

Promoter liability under Section 64 is untouched. A developer who fails to comply with an Appellate Tribunal order still faces up to 3 years imprisonment, or a daily fine reaching 5% of project cost, or both. This is the heaviest custodial exposure in the entire RERA penalty structure, and Jan Vishwas left it fully intact.

Agent liability under Section 66 is equally unchanged. One year imprisonment, fine up to 5% of project cost, or both, for ignoring a Tribunal direction. If you are a registered intermediary and an order goes against you, the criminal risk you carried in 2025 is the identical risk you carry today.

Section 63 (promoter, Authority orders) and Section 65 (agent, Authority orders) also remain as drafted. The pattern is clear: only the allottee provision at the Tribunal stage was softened. Promoters and brokers retained the same penalties they have faced since RERA commenced.

Why 'Full RERA Decriminalisation' Is Wrong

You will see headlines and casual commentary describing Jan Vishwas 2026 as decriminalising RERA. That is legally incorrect, and repeating it in an exam or to a client will cost you credibility.

Decriminalisation means removing the criminal, custodial element of an offence. Under RERA, imprisonment survives in three places: Section 59 (promoter, on continued non-registration), Section 64 (promoter, Tribunal orders), and Section 66 (agent, Tribunal orders). All three carry custodial terms. None were amended.

The amendment removed imprisonment from one section affecting one category of person at one stage of the dispute process. Calling that a full decriminalisation collapses a precise legal change into a sweeping and false claim. When a property broker tells a developer client that RERA is now decriminalised, that developer may relax exactly where Section 64 still threatens up to three years inside. Precision here protects both your client and your own standing as a RERA professional.

Three Practical Implications for MahaRERA Agents

First, your criminal exposure is unchanged. Section 66 still puts your liberty on the line if you ignore an Appellate Tribunal order, and Section 62 still imposes Rs 10,000 per day for breaching your Section 9 and 10 duties. Treat every Tribunal direction as non-negotiable. Keep your project disclosures clean and your client communications documented, because the consequence of a finding against you has not moved.

Second, buyers you advise carry less criminal risk at the appellate stage. If you guide a client through a dispute, you can tell them honestly that imprisonment under Section 68 is off the table, while the financial penalty of up to 10% of property cost remains.

Third, the post and at-handover compliance habits that keep you clear of Sections 62, 65, and 66 are the same habits that protect your registration renewal standing. A clean compliance record is your cheapest insurance against the whole penalty chain.

How This Lands in the MahaRERA Exam

Examiners love the penalty sections because they reward candidates who read carefully and punish those who memorise loosely. Expect at least one question that asks you to match a section number to the correct person and penalty. The classic trap pairs Section 64 with agents or Section 66 with promoters. Get the role wrong and you lose the mark.

Post the May 2026 amendment, a new style of question is likely: identifying what changed under Section 68 versus what stayed under Sections 63, 64, and 66. If a question states that Jan Vishwas removed all imprisonment from RERA, that statement is false, and recognising why is the test.

Drill these distinctions until they are automatic. Work through role-specific scenarios on the topic-wise RERA practice test, then confirm your timing under exam conditions with a full-length mock test. Knowing the matrix cold is worth several easy marks.