The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) said it lacks jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, to decide whether the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) can levy property tax on a homebuyer for the period before the flat’s possession is handed over.
The observation came while rejecting a homebuyer’s plea seeking a refund of property tax charged by the Pune Housing and Area Development Board for a flat in Tathawade, Pimpri-Chinchwad.
The case
The complaint was filed by two homebuyers who had purchased a ready-to-move-in apartment in MHADA’s Tathawade project under MHADA’s First Come First Serve (FCFS) scheme.
The homebuyers alleged that MHADA had charged them ₹19,500 towards property tax for the period from August 7, 2023, to March 31, 2025, even though possession of the flat was offered on March 12, 2025. They said physical possession was subsequently given on April 16, 2025.
The buyers argued that they should not be liable for property tax for the period when the flat was not in their possession.
They initially sought a refund of ₹47,210, comprising property tax and maintenance-related charges, along with interest and other reliefs. During the proceedings, the maintenance amount of ₹30,000 was stated to have been adjusted following reconciliation and mediation.
The remaining dispute concerned the property tax amount, with the complainants seeking a refund of ₹18,860 for the period preceding possession.
MHADA’s defence
MHADA argued that the property tax and maintenance charges were already disclosed in the offer letter and possession slip signed by the homebuyers. The possession slip specifically mentioned property tax for the period from August 7, 2023, to March 31, 2025, and maintenance charges for the period from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025.
The MHADA also disputed the buyers’ reliance on a policy announced on January 6, 2025, which the complainants said provided that property tax and maintenance charges were payable by the owner after possession. MHADA told MahaRERA that no circular had been issued pursuant to the policy, so the complainants could not rely on it.
The authority’s order also records that the flat had been booked on December 22, 2024, before the policy was announced, while the offer letter was issued later in December 2024. However, MHADA argued that the property tax charges were already disclosed in the offer letter and possession slip, which the buyers had accepted.
Also Read: Pitru Paksha 2026: Why homebuyers put property purchases on hold during Shraddh
MahaRERA’s verdict
MahaRERA examined whether the refund sought by the homebuyers could be granted under the RERA Act. It was observed that refunds under the Act could be granted in circumstances covered by Sections 12 and 18. However, the complainants’ claim for a property tax refund did not fall under either provision.
The authority further noted that the buyers were not alleging that MHADA had failed to hand over possession within the agreed timeline, which could have triggered a refund claim under Section 18.
“It is seen that the relief of the complainant seeking refund of property tax does not fall under any of the provisions of the said Act. As a result, refund sought by the complainants cannot be granted in favour of the complainants,” the MahaRERA said in its order.
“Not only this, the question whether MHADA can levy property tax from the complainants for a period when the complainants were not in possession of the said flat and the said flat remained under MHADA’s control is concerned, the said Act does not empower this Authority to decide the said issue,” the MHADA said in its order.
The MahaRERA rejected the complaint filed by the two homebuyers against MHADA’s Pune Board.
