HORIZON
Share

A study of the public record

What India's states actually disclose about a real-estate project

Every state runs a RERA register. They do not publish the same things — and the gap between the fullest and the thinnest is most of the record.

RERA is one national law implemented by 30-odd state authorities, each running its own portal, its own form and its own idea of what the public is entitled to see. In practice that means the answer to “what does the register say about this project?” depends heavily on which state it is in.

This counts the difference. For every state in the corpus, it measures how many of its published records actually carry a promised completion date, a revision to that date and a declared project cost — and, separately, whether the register publishes a complaints file, quarterly progress and an escrow declaration at all.

It is the one measurement that requires holding all the registers at once, which is why it has not been published before.

1,29,036project records countedacross 22 state registers
98.1%carry a promised completion datethe single most-filed fact in the register
38.3%carry a declared project costonly 14 of 22 registers carry a cost field at all
5 of 22states publish a complaints registerthe rest publish none — which is not the same as having none

What each state's register carries

StateRecordsPossession dateRevised dateDeclared costComplaintsProgressEscrow
Maharashtra49,380100.0%not publishednot publishedpublishedpublishedpublished
Gujarat17,548100.0%not published69.4%publishedpublishedpublished
Telangana11,162100.0%not publishednot publishednot publishednot publishedpublished
Karnataka8,956100.0%not published99.6%publishedpublishedpublished
Andhra Pradesh7,106100.0%not published100.0%not publishednot publishednot published
Madhya Pradesh5,320100.0%29.6%98.2%not publishedpublishedpublished
West Bengal4,788100.0%2.9%not publishednot publishednot publishednot published
Rajasthan4,364100.0%21.4%99.8%not publishednot publishedpublished
Uttar Pradesh3,800100.0%42.4%97.2%publishednot publishedpublished
Tamil Nadu3,79061.0%not publishednot publishednot publishednot publishednot published
Chhattisgarh2,150100.0%not published87.8%publishedpublishedpublished
Punjab2,092100.0%not published88.6%not publishednot publishedpublished
Bihar2,022100.0%0.4%100.0%not publishednot publishedpublished
Kerala1,63699.5%not publishednot publishednot publishednot publishedpublished
Odisha1,25361.6%not publishednot publishednot publishednot publishedpublished
Assam1,21199.9%not published76.8%not publishednot publishedpublished
Jharkhand1,17799.0%8.5%65.3%not publishednot publishedpublished
Goa475100.0%not published70.5%not publishednot publishednot published
Himachal Pradesh284not publishednot publishednot publishednot publishednot publishedpublished
Tripura234100.0%not publishednot publishednot publishednot publishednot published
Haryana14827.7%17.6%60.1%not publishednot publishedpublished
Delhi14088.6%not published31.4%not publishednot publishedpublished

The first three columns are the share of that state's records carrying the field; the last three are whether the register publishes that section at all. Ordered by number of records held, largest first — order carries no other meaning.

How this was counted

  • Every project record in the corpus is grouped by state. The possession date, revised date and declared cost are counted per record: the percentage is the share of that state's records carrying a usable value.
  • Complaints, progress and escrow are counted differently, because they are properties of the register rather than of a record: a state either publishes that file or it does not. Those columns therefore read “published” or “not published”, not a percentage — a percentage there would have said 100% for every state that publishes the section, which means something quite different from what it appears to say.
  • Where a per-record field is absent from every one of a state's records, it is reported as “not published” rather than 0%. A portal that carries no cost field at all is not a portal where no promoter declared a cost.
  • Percentages are of that state's records in the corpus, not of every project the state has ever registered.

What it does not show

  • A high disclosure percentage is a measure of what a portal publishes, not of whether a project is well run, and not of whether the filed values are accurate. Horizon does not audit filings.
  • Coverage differs by state: the corpus holds what was readable at the last read, which for some states is a subset of their register.
  • Fields can be missing because a state files them somewhere Horizon does not yet read, not only because they are unpublished.
  • Only what the register itself carries is counted. Coordinates, neighbourhood detail and government guidance rates shown elsewhere on Horizon are added by Horizon from other sources, so they are deliberately not in this table — including them would credit a state with disclosure it never made.

Computed from every project record Horizon holds, sourced from the state RERA registers and recomputed daily. Horizon publishes the record; it does not rank, score or advise.

Cite this study

Free to quote, chart or republish with a link back to this page. No permission needed — the figures are counts of a public register. The numbers are recomputed daily, so a citation is worth dating.

1,29,036 project records counted, according to Horizon's count of India's state RERA registers (https://gethorizon.in/research/what-india-discloses).

Horizon. “What India's states actually disclose about a real-estate project.” Computed from India's state RERA registers. Retrieved —. https://gethorizon.in/research/what-india-discloses