This study examines the implementation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), across selected Indian states, with particular attention to differences in disclosure practices, the availability of annual reports, project and real estate agent registrations, and complaint disposal. It investigates how the growth of the real estate sector may be supported by a clear legal and regulatory framework while safeguarding the rights and legitimate interests of allottees and homebuyers. The analysis adopts a doctrinal and descriptive comparative approach, examining the statutory provisions, relevant judicial decisions, and state-level information made available through regulatory websites and government reporting systems. The purpose is to identify variations in the public presentation of regulatory information and to consider what those differences mean for transparency, accountability, and consumer protection. The author-supplied state comparisons indicate substantial variation in the numbers of registered projects, registered agents, and complaints disposed of across the selected jurisdictions. Maharashtra leads in the historical project- and agent-registration comparisons presented in the source charts, whereas Uttar Pradesh records a particularly large volume of disposed complaints. These absolute counts, however, cannot independently establish the effectiveness of enforcement without information about reporting dates, pending caseloads, project size, complaint inflows, and the availability of comparable denominators. The study therefore distinguishes regulatory activity from demonstrated regulatory performance. It argues that RERA has provided an important statutory foundation for registration, disclosure, financial safeguards, and remedies, but that transparent and consistently reported state-level data remain necessary for meaningful comparisons. The findings support regular publication of comparable statistics, clearer disclosure standards, and stronger institutional monitoring so that homebuyers, researchers, and policymakers can evaluate regulatory implementation on a more reliable basis.
