as a silver lining said that based on its scrutiny of sections 678 and 37 see graphic for explanation the rera authority would be entitled to provide leeway if in exceptional and compelling circumstances a promoter could not complete the project in spite of extensionsof maximum a yeargranted under section 6 it should be granted on casebycase basis after hearing promoter allottee and in certain cases even the government the hc held but it cautioned that this doesnt mean that in every case of failureto complete the project within the extended time under section 6 the promoter shall be entitledbut the hc dismissed the builders contention of projects being expropriated under rera in case of delays there is no acquisition or requisition of the promoters property said the hc it only deals with transfer of property the judges held that when construed harmoniously sections 34 56 7 and 8 dealing with revocation of registrationobjected to by buildersare not discriminatory nor do they violate the rights to property and freedom of trade these provisions impose reasonable restrictions on the promoter in larger public interest they regulate construction activitiesregarding section 18 which makes a builder liable to compensate a buyer for delay in possession even if he withdraws from a project the hc found nothing unconstitutional its purpose is to ameliorate the buyers in real estate sector and balance the rights of all the stakeholders it seeks to protect the allottees and simplify the remedying of wrongs committed by a promoter held the hc adding it ensures that a buyers money is not misused or unreasonably retained by the promoterbefore rera home buyers had limited protection under statespecific laws in maharashtra such law had a serious lacuna as it provided no timeline for completion of projects the union housing ministry began the process of framing rera in june 2013 after seeking objections and suggestions from all stakeholders including real estate developers the law was finally enacted in march 2016