Scholarly Paper

Empirical Analysis of Real Estate Disputes

Mukul B. Patel 1 and D. A. Patel 2

Abstract: Disputes in the real estate sector are unavoidable and are considered the most crucial aspect in the timely completion of real estate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

projects. There are numerous causes of disputes arising in the real estate sector leading to delays in projects. A proper complaint system was
unaccounted for until 2016, when the Indian government formulated a framework to secure the sector into the legal and regulatory structure.
The Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) enforces the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA Act), which has
brought about positive reform in the unorganized sector in the interest of the allottees and the promoters. This study attempts to identify and
categorize the disputes concerning real estate projects registered with RERA. A brief discussion is included on the dispute resolution tech-
nique adopted by RERA. A mathematical model using logistic regression analysis is formulated and adopted to estimate the factors causing
disputes leading to project delay. Sensitivity and robustness analyses of the model outcomes is presented. The disputes are analyzed based on
70 judgments collected from Gujarat State, India. The findings indicate that the significant dispute is a result of the documentation lapses
among the stakeholders. A competent grievance redressal mechanism has been established after the enactment of the RERA Act, with the
purpose of resolving conflicts in the sector as quickly as possible. Analysis of the model implies that the project cost is the primary factor
responsible for the delay. Mixed developments of residential and commercial projects are more delayed than individual residential and
commercial projects. Causes of disputes identified by this study can be focused on while amending the act, and all stakeholders must address
them to avoid any future occurrence of disputes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000564. © 2022 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Delay; Dispute; Dispute resolution; Logistic regression analysis; Real estate (regulation and development) act, 2016
(RERA Act); Real estate regulatory authority (RERA); Robustness analysis; Sensitivity analysis.

Introduction
The real estate sector is one of the most globally recognized sectors.
The industry covers housing, retail, hospitality, and commercial as
subsectors (Invest India 2021). Any construction project, including
the real estate sector, is most widely known for its delayed deliv-
erance, irrespective of its type, location, and delivery system
(Bektas et al. 2021). Disputes have been identified as an epidemic
in the construction business, and they frequently result in project
failure, time and money loss, and strained relationships among
project participants (Cheung and Pang 2013; Cheung et al. 2001).
Unless and until issues are handled quickly, they tend to escalate
and eventually lead to dispute resolution actions. These proceed-
ings take time and money. Investigating construction industry dis-
putes and their causes is critical, and appropriate management
action can only be performed if based on credible evidence (Fenn
et al. 1997).
Likewise, real estate projects are subject to delays and disputes
due to numerous reasons. There are many mechanisms for averting
disputes. Due to the rapid urbanization, legislation in the sector is
the urgently need. Hence, the government has become aware and
1
Ph.D. Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India (corresponding
author). Email: mukulpatelb@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India. Email:
dapscholar@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 7, 2022; approved on
July 4, 2022; published online on October 19, 2022. Discussion period
open until March 19, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Legal Affairs and
Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN
1943-4162.
has introduced the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
2016 (RERA Act) (Ministry of Law and Justice 2016). The real
estate sector is thus expected to be streamlined, benefitting all
the stakeholders (Civil Service India 2018).
There are 92 sections in the act that focus on protecting the in-
terests of both its major stakeholders, the allottees (homebuyers) and
the promoter (builder/developer). It must be studied, and the various
provisions offered by the act needs to be understood. It is a recently
formulated act, and thus, necessary amendments can be incorpo-
rated based on the experience of experts in the field and studies con-
ducted in the area. One of the major aims of the act is to provide a
proper grievance redressal mechanism for the stakeholders for
speedy resolution of the disputes, which was earlier missing in this
area. Another essential objective of the act is the transparency be-
tween the stakeholders, by which the act enforces the formulation of
the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) to provide the details
of the projects under its purview for public viewing.
The present study, thus, reviews the provisions and the actions
of the RERA Act and its contribution to resolving disputes occur-
ring among the stakeholders. A mathematical model using logistic
regression analysis is formulated to estimate the critical factors,
available for the projects, causing disputes leading to the delay
of a project.
In the next section, the literature review of delays, disputes, dis-
pute resolution, and the factors/indicators affecting the project is
presented to finalize the objectives of the study. The provisions,
dispute resolution mechanism, and the availability of project
information/characteristics under the purview of the RERA Act
are subsequently discussed. The analysis of the occurrences of vari-
ous disputes under RERA, formulation of the logistic regression
model with the available project information along with sensitivity
and robustness analyses of the model is presented in the further
sections, followed by conclusions of the study.

© ASCE 04522037-1 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037

 Literature Review
The development in the corporate segment and office space demand
has supplemented the growth of the real estate sector (Invest India
2021). The real estate dates back to the advent of the industrial rev-
olution when machines were introduced, making the people redun-
dant and shifting to the land and the coal mines beneath to earn for a
living (Investopedia 2022). According to the Real Estate Market
Size Report 20/21 (Hariharan et al. 2021), the real estate market
across the world grew to USD10.5 trillion in 2020, and it is now
1.6 times the size it was in 2010. Even in the previous years of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
unprecedented times, the rate of increase was higher than in 2019,
when the market rose by 8.3% (Hariharan et al. 2021). While the
US accounted for 38.8% of the market in 2020, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa (EMEA), and the Asia-Pacific (APAC) accounted
for 34.7% and 26.5%, respectively. On a year-on-year basis, the
market size in the US increased by 5.8% in 2020 to USD4.1 trillion,
while EMEA and APAC increased by 13.4% and 8.3%, respec-
tively, to USD3.6 trillion and USD2.8 trillion (Hariharan et al.
2021).
The construction development sector of the economy of India
encompasses three segments: real estate construction, infrastruc-
ture, and industrial construction (Invest India 2021). According
to the United Nations, Indian cities will constitute 50% of the entire
population by the year 2046, hence leading to a high demand for
houses in urban areas. In comparison to the required construction
pace of five houses per 1,000 people, around three houses are built
per 1,000 people per year in India (IBEF 2021). According to The
Economic Times (2017), the current urban housing deficit is ex-
pected to exceed 10 million units. To accommodate the country’s
growing urban population, an extra 25 million units of affordable
housing are needed by 2030 (IBEF 2021). In this regard, the Indian
government has enacted a slew of housing laws. The National
Urban Housing and Habitat Policy of 2007 was the first policy fo-
cusing on urban housing (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty
Alleviation 2012). The government promoted the Pradhan Mantri
Awas Yojana–Urban (PMAY-U), a flagship mission being executed
by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. The mission targets
urban housing shortages among the economically weaker sections
(EWS)/low-income group (LIG) and middle-income group (MIG)
groups, including slum dwellers, by guaranteeing a pucca (strong)
home to all qualified urban households by 2022 (Pradhan Mantri
Awas Yojana-Urban 2022). In 2017, real estate contributed about
6%–7% of India’s GDP, which is forecasted to be 13% by 2025 as
per the projected growth trends (Invest India 2021; Money Control
2021). The financial, real estate, and professional services contrib-
ute a maximum of about 22.05% for 2020–2021 (Statistics Times
2021).
Given such an essential contribution to the country’s overall de-
velopment, the real estate sector in India is faced with a wide vari-
ety of issues and has a bad image. The real estate sector is also
victim of disputes leading to delays like other construction projects.
The issues faced by the real estate sector due to unavailability of
any governance briefly include an absence of proper grievance re-
dressal mechanism, delay in possession by developers, improper
agreement of sale, nonadherence to sanctioned plans and specifi-
cations, nonregulation of real estate agents, delay in government
approvals, profiteering, money laundering, misuse of funds, infor-
mation irregularity and many such matters that ultimately affect
productivity (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 2020;
Deep et al. 2018). The project’s status was also one of the issues
that the buyers were not aware of, making this sector opaque (Deep
et al. 2018). All these issues have been looked upon by the RERA
Act. In resort to the various ambiguities aggravating the image of
© ASCE 04522037-2
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037
the real estate industry, the RERA Act indeed brings a paradigm
shift in this sector in the interests of the developers, homebuyers,
and real estate agents.
Delays in construction projects can be attributed due to many
reasons, such as strikes, rework, inefficient organization, resource
constraints, machinery failure, change orders, acts of God, disputes,
and many more (Magdy et al. 2019). Delays may be due to clients,
such as lateness in the availability of drawings and specifications,
occasional changes in the scope of work, and improper site infor-
mation, might lead to claims, further making way for arbitration
and huge financial repercussions (Mahamid 2017; Mitkus and
Mitkus 2014). Delays on account of the contractor includes
improper project management, lack of planning, and poor financial
management (Deep et al. 2018; Barman and Charoenngam 2017).
In their study, Deep et al. (2018) identified that contractors are ma-
jorly responsible for the delay in real estate construction projects
from among various criteria such as financial issues, partnering,
error identification and rectification, and site conditions.
Delays in making decisions, delays in progress, cost overruns, a
lack of rigorous quality control, modifications, and contractual term
misinterpretation are all sources of significant claims that result in
disputes in the construction sector (Ilter and Bakioglu 2018). Many
researchers have identified the causes of disputes. Kumaraswamy
(1997) classified the causes of disputes in two ways: primary causes
and root causes. Primary causes mainly relate to inaccurate design
information, inadequate contract administration, or delayed site
possession. Conversely, root causes include unfair risk allocation,
inappropriate contract type, and unrealistic expectations. Acharya
et al. (2006) analyzed the construction industry in Korea and clas-
sified the causes of conflicts leading to disputes into six groups,
categorized as conflicts arising out of differing site conditions,
errors and omissions in design, obstruction by local people, an ex-
cessive quantity of work, differences in change-order valuation, and
ambiguity in specifications.
Many previous studies have focused on examining the relation-
ship between project delivery system (PDS) and various factors
such as project characteristics, contractors’ characteristics, owners’
characteristics, and external environment (Chen et al. 2011;
Mostavafi and Karamouz 2010; Luu et al. 2003). Liu et al. (2016)
determined that the project scale, project type, disputes, project
complexity, flexibility, and scope definition are the major factors
influencing the decision-making of the PDS. Similar factors have
been used in this study to establish a relationship between project
characteristics and their impact on disputes, ultimately leading to
delay. While many indicators or factors affect a project from being
disputed in any matter, factors such as project cost, project type,
project validity, and project land area are available on the portal of
each state’s Real Estate Regulatory Authority website. Many stud-
ies related to these factors linking to the project are conducted and a
summary of the literature review is presented in Table 1.
Disputes arise due to disagreements among the contract parties.
According to Illankoon et al. (2019), when there is a disagreement,
the contract’s parties focus on resolving it following its terms. How-
ever, if the parties are still unable to reach an agreement, the matter
is escalated to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Diekmann and
Girard (1995) define dispute resolution as “any contract question or
controversy that must be settled beyond the job site management.”
ADR serves as an alternative to litigation (Illankoon et al. 2019).
Different countries use various ADR mechanisms, such as media-
tion, adjudication, conciliation, arbitration, dispute review experts,
or dispute review boards (Parikh et al. 2019).
Conciliation is a facilitative form of dispute resolution that fos-
ters beneficial connections. The facilitator seeks to build a pleasant
and mutually beneficial connection between the parties. The goal is
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Table 1. Factors/variables affecting disputes leading to delay
Factors Relevant studies
Project land area Shalaby and Khalafallah (2018), Chou
et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2016), Mafakheri
et al. (2007), Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005),
Ling and Liu (2004), and Ling et al.
(2004).
Project type Shalaby and Khalafallah (2018), Chou
et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2016), Irfan et al.
(2011), Shen et al. (2006), Ling and Liu
(2004), Ling et al. (2004), and Konchar
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Sanvido (1998).
Project registration validity Chou et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2016), Irfan
et al. (2011), Ling and Liu (2004), Ling
et al. (2004), and Chan et al. (2001).
Project cost category Chou et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2016), Irfan
et al. (2011), Mafakheri et al. (2007), Shen
et al. (2006), Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005),
Ling and Liu (2004), Ling et al. (2004),
Chan et al. (2001), and Konchar and
Sanvido (1998).
to correct perceptions, alleviate concerns, and increase communi-
cation so that the parties can engage in conflict-free discussions and
bargaining. Conciliation is the psychological aspect of the media-
tion process. Parties have the option of determining their outcomes
(du Preez 2014). Moore et al. (2014) describes conciliation as a
fundamental component of mediation that mentally prepares the
parties to undertake the lengthy mediation process. Thus, it can be
considered a suitable ADR method. Litigation is the final step in
settling construction issues. However, it is an expensive and time-
consuming process in India. The RERA Act suggests the Authority,
in accordance with Section 32(g) of the act, employ formation of
dispute settlement forums for settlement before proceeding to lit-
igation under RERA.
Considering the various causes of disputes arising between the
parties for various construction fields, disputes related to real estate,
especially under the purview of the recent RERA Act, have not yet
been explored. This study thus attempts to explore the disputes aris-
ing in the real estate sector and the dispute resolution mechanism
adopted by the RERA Act. A description of the information available
Fig. 1. Research methodology.
© ASCE 04522037-3
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037
on the portal, and an attempt to establish a relationship between
project information and delays is undertaken.
Objectives of This Study
Based on the literature review and research gap discussed in pre-
vious sections, the objectives of the study are to (1) identify and
categorize the causes of disputes that occurred in real estate projects
registered under the RERA Act 2016; (2) highlight the dispute re-
dressal mechanism adopted by RERA; and (3) estimate whether a
project will lead to delay.
Research Methodology
As shown in Fig. 1, this study employs an interconnected multistep
research technique that focuses on the study of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (Step 1); the study of dis-
putes under the act (Step 2); categorization of disputes (Step 3a);
and extraction of project information and modelling using logistic
regression analysis (Step 3b).
Step 1: Study of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act 2016
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 was no-
tified and enforced on May 1, 2017 (Moneylife Foundation 2020).
The primary goal of this pioneering law is to ensure the effective
and transparent regulation and promotion of the real estate sector
and safeguard house purchasers’ interests. Selected salient features
of the act and its implications, relevant to this study, are discussed
in the subsequent paragraphs.
State governments are obligated to notify their own rules and
regulations under the act, based on the model rules set by the cen-
tral act (Section 20). The RERA Act requires each state and union
territory (UT) to establish its own regulator and the regulations gov-
erning how the regulator operates. The state RERA must be notified
of any real estate projects. Without registering these projects, pro-
moters cannot book or sell them. Real estate agents who work on
these developments must also be registered with the real estate
regulatory authorities (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2021).
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 One of the main objectives of the RERA Act is the transparency
in the system for the allottees to know the status of their investment.
The same is established by publishing all the details of the real es-
tate project on the respective website for public viewing. To achieve
compliance with Section 34(b) of the RERA Act, the authority has
to design and publish a website for public viewing for all the real
estate projects under their discretion, and shall ensure that all dis-
closures submitted to them by promoters on their particular real
estate project are made public on its website. In lines of the same,
almost all the states and UTs in India have notified the rules under
RERA (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2022). As per the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
act, the promoter must furnish the details of the project and update
the same from time to time. Some broad contents that apply to all
state rules are as follows (RERA Filing 2019):
1. The promoter shall reveal the size of the apartment based on
carpet area, even if previously sold on any other basis such as
super area, and built-up area, which shall not influence the prior
agreement between the promoter and the allottee.
2. The amount of open parking spaces and covered parking spaces
accessible in the aforementioned real estate project.
3. A copy of the legal title deed confirming the promoter’s title to
the property on which development is envisaged and legally
valid documentation with authentication of such title when the
owner is not the promoter.
4. Encumbrances affecting the concerned land, including any
rights, title, interest, or name of any person in or over such land
and facts.
5. In the event of a plotted development, the promoter must reveal
the size of the plots sold to the allottees and the amount of their
share of common spaces and facilities.
6. At the time of sale, the promoter should reveal the time period
initially specified to the allottees for completion of the project,
including any delays, and the term shall begin with the amount
of development already done.
7. The promoter must submit a certificate from a practicing char-
tered accountant certifying the balance amount of receivables
from the apartments sold in respect of which the agreement
was executed, as well as the estimated amount of receivables
in respect of unsold apartments or premises calculated at the
prevailing annual schedule of rates (ASR) on the date of the
certificate.
8. An annual report for the preceding three fiscal years, containing
an audited profit and loss account, balance sheet, cash flow
statement, director’s report, and auditor’s report of the promoter.
Among the RERA websites, the Maharashtra RERA website
(MahaRERA 2021) is acknowledged to be the most user-friendly.
Down to the smallest detail, the scheme’s projects may be found.
As a result, it enables one to make a more educated decision about
the real estate investment. Furthermore, the Maharashtra RERA
website provides up-to-date information on existing and future
projects covered by the MahaRERA statute. For example, informa-
tion on the construction design and the number of parking spots
authorized for a specific project may be easily acquired by visiting
the MahaRERA website (MahaRERA 2021). The website also
offers a good notion of when the home, flat, or apartment may be
expected to be handed over, as it lists the completion date and any
updated completion dates. The platform also allows examining the
authenticity of different project brokers (Bajaj Finserv 2021).
MahaRERA is the leading state in India to have the maximum
response in terms of project registrations since its inception (Indian
Express 2018). Currently, as per the latest implementation report
of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2022), Maharashtra
has the maximum number of 33,882 projects registered with the
Authority.
© ASCE 04522037-4
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037
A total of 9,818 projects have been registered with Gujarat
RERA up to March 2022 as per the latest implementation report of
the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2022), with an invest-
ment potential of $432 billion, out of which more than 4,000 proj-
ects are already completed from the date of inception of the Act.
GujRERA has resolved more than 3,000 cases, out of which about
1,000 are complaints filed by the citizens.
Step 2: Study of Disputes under RERA
Any homebuyer who wanted to address any complaint and seek
compensation on matters about the purchase of their real estate
entity against the developer previously had to approach the
Consumers’ Court, following the Indian Contract Act 1872 or the
Consumer Protection Act 1986, which was lengthy, and no proper
guidelines or framework were involved in its litigation process
(Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 2020). However, after
the implementation of RERA, aggrieved persons can register their
complaints on the respective state website against their intended
RERA registered project with all details. Another essential objec-
tive of the RERA Act is to establish an adjudicating mechanism for
a speedy dispute redressal. Section 31 of the Act stipulates the pro-
vision for filing of complaints with the Authority or the adjudicat-
ing officer by any person against the promoter, allottee, or the real
estate agent for any violation or contravention of the provisions of
the act or the rules and regulations made thereafter (Ministry of
Law and Justice 2016).
For the specific study, the Surat district of Gujarat state in India
is chosen as the scope of research. Surat is located in the western
Indian state of Gujarat; and is popularly known by various other
names such as “The Silk City,” “The Diamond City,” or “The Green
City.” Due to immigration from different parts of Gujarat and other
Indian states, it is one of the most dynamic cities in India, with one
of the highest growth rates (Surat Municipal Corporation 2022). It
is also one of the cleanest cities in India (NDTV 2021). The urban
backdrop of Surat is characterized by social cohesion issues,
expanding rural-to-urban migration, rising housing demand, and a
substantial strain on municipal administration and resources (Udeaja
et al. 2020). According to a Global Economic Research Report
prepared by Oxford Economics, Surat will be the world’s fastest-
growing metropolis from 2019 to 2035 (The Economic Times
2018). Surat can thus be well represented for India as well as
the world. In addition, since our institution is located in Surat,
we can readily engage with real estate developers to acquire their
insights for this study.
Any stakeholder can view the details of any real estate project
registered with GujRERA on its website (GujRERA 2021). Users
can view details of any project in two ways, either by filtering
with an option of the district or theycan select the project from
the map. A total of 70 judgments have been declared on the
website (GujRERA 2021) from the date the website was commis-
sioned until October 2021. This study attempts to categorize these
judgments as these are found to be the most reliable compared to
any other data due to the involvement of law and justice in these
matters.
Step 3a: Categorization of Disputes
Based on the objectives discussed previously and the salient fea-
tures of the act and opinions of the experts in the field, the act
mainly revolves around the disputes that arise between the promot-
ers and the allottees and the same can be categorized as follows:
1. Delayed possession: When a promoter delays the handing over
of the allotted flat to the allottee beyond the date of possession
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 as mentioned in the registered sale deed, the promoter is liable to
compensate the allottee, as mentioned in the registered sale
deed, for the duration of delay until possession. If the promoter
fails to compensate, the allottee can file a complaint with the
authority for the same (Sections 4 and 18). As per Section
11(3)(b) of the act, the promoter must disclose the project’s
completion timeline, broken down into stages, and the allottee
is entitled to know the same as per Section 19(2) of the act. If the
allottee finds that the actual progress on the site is delayed,
the allottee can file a complaint with the Authority and receive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
5. Nonregistered projects: Real estate projects must be registered
with the respective states, and the failure in doing so can draw in
disputes, either by the allottee or the Authority (Section 3).
6. Not under the discretion of RERA: The act was introduced in
the year 2016. Any complaints related to projects before 2016 or
beyond the act’s scope have been dismissed by the Authority.
7. Withdrawn: Some of the complaints were settled amicably, or
complete documents for court proceedings was not provided by
either of the parties. Likewise, if the aggrieved party was not an
allottee as per RERA or the complaints were withdrawn mid-
way, these were clubbed under this category. Such cases were

appropriate compensation for the same by the promoter.

2. Documentation lapses: Allottee can file complaints with the
Authority against the promoter for various matters such as
invalid documents or nonissuance or delay in issuing the build-
ing use permission/occupancy certificate/completion certificate
[Section 11(4)(b)], commencement certificate [Section 4(2)(c)],
registered sale deed [Sections 4(2)(g), 13], formation of society
[Sections 11(4)(e), 11(4)(f)], or transfer of title (Section 17). The
category also includes the filing of complaints by the promoters
where the allottees create issues in the formation of the society
by the allottees [Section 19(11)]. The promoter must have a
clear title on the land where the project is being executed and
the documents must be indisputable [Section (4)(2)(l)(A)].
3. Facilities not as per brochure: The allottee can file a complaint
against the promoter regarding incomplete amenities or the fa-
cilities not complying with the sanctioned brochure or sanc-
tioned plans of the project, or illegal constructions as the case
may be [Section 14(1), 14(2)].
4. Nonquality construction: The promoter is liable to correct any
defect in the workmanship or quality or provision of services or
structural defects within 5 years of the date of handing over the
possession, and in the event of the failure in correcting the defect
by the promoter, the allottee can file a complaint with the
Authority and receive appropriate compensation (Section 14).
termed withdrawn by the Authority.
The subcategories for each cause of dispute is shown in Table 2.
All the cases available on the GujRERA website of the Surat district
have been studied, and the causes of the dispute of each case has
been categorized as per Table 2.
Step 3b: Extraction of Project Information and
Modeling Using Logistic Regression Analysis
The data available on the GujRERA website was retrieved for the
disputed projects. An attempt was made whether the project will
lead to delay or not from the publicly available data on the website.
The project information, such as project land area, project type,
project registration validity and project cost category, for the
36 disputed projects were extracted as displayed in Table S1 and
logistic regression analysis was performed. The procurement meth-
ods in case of private real estate projects in India are usually design-
build and do not vary in India for real estate projects registered
under RERA. The private developers (promoters) themselves pur-
chase the land, design the structure, execute the construction work,
and sell the finished apartments. The registered sale deed is issued
by the promoter to the allottee when the latter has paid more than
10% of the cost for the said apartment. This forms a contract

Table 2. Causes of disputes under the RERA Act

Primary Affected
S. No. Causes of dispute stakeholder stakeholder
1 Delayed possession P A
P A
2 Documentation lapses P A
P A
P A
P A
P R
NA P Disputes in land ownership
A P
P A
P A
P A
3 Facilities/amenities not as per brochure P A
P A
P A
4 Nonquality construction P A
5 Nonregistered projects P A, G
6 Not under the discretion of RERA R A
R A
7 Withdrawn P R
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
Note: A = allottee; P = promoter; R = RERA authority; G = government authority; and NA = not applicable.
Subcategory
Delay in possession
Slow progress
Invalid building use permission
Nonissuance of building use permission
Nonissuance of the registered sale deed
Nonissuance of completion certificate
Noncompliance with quarterly updates
Nonformation of society by allottees
Nonregistration by promoter
Nonformation of society by the promoter
Nontransfer of title
Amenities not as per brochure
Incomplete amenities
Illegal constructions
Inferior construction
The project is not registered under RERA
Matter before RERA
Matter not as per any rules of RERA
No proper documents
Dispute already settled
Aggrieved not an allottee
Ambiguous reason
No response from the complainant
Not proceed further

© ASCE 04522037-5 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037

 Table 3. Description of independent and dependent variables
Variable Variable name Variable type
x1 Project land area Metric
x2 Project type Nonmetric
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
x3 Project registration validity Metric
x4 Project cost category Nonmetric
Z [logitðpÞ] Delay Binary
a
Form 4 is a document submitted by the architect in-charge, which is issued on completion of each building or wing as the case may be to the RERA.
between the stakeholders and does not vary for any private real
estate project registered with RERA. The majority of the disputes
are such that they cannot be quantified into monetary values. For
example, if the dispute is regarding documentation lapses, the Au-
thority passes the judgment against the defaulter to fulfill the matter
for which the complaint was raised. Such types of complaints can-
not be quantified and transformed into the monetary value, and
since these are in majority and beyond the scope of the study, these
situations not been included in the current work.
Logistic regression is a subset of regression designed to predict
and explain a binary (two-group) categorical variable rather than a
metric dependent measure. When the dependent variable is cat-
egorical (nominal or nonmetric), and the independent variables
are metric or nonmetric, logistic regression is the suitable statistical
approach (Hair et al. 2018). Thus, the favored regression technique
for this research is logistic regression modeling. It relates to deter-
mining the chance of an event falling into one of the two outcomes;
this research explores two such outcomes: delay versus nondelay.
Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to develop an equation
for the prediction of delay. Delay factors included in the equation are
project land area (m2 ), project type (residential, commercial, mixed,
or plotted), project registration validity (months), and project cost
category. Project land area and project registration validity were
modeled as continuous metric variables, and project type and project
cost category were nonmetric categorical variables as described in
Table 3.
Jaselskis and Ashley (1991) employed logistic regression to
forecast a construction project’s success. Russell and Jaselskis
(1992) applied the discrete choice logistic regression in predicting
the construction contractor’s failure before its award. Diekmann
and Girard (1995) created a logistic regression model named the
disputes potential index to predict disputes. Several studies on
the application of logistic regression in different fields have also
been undertaken.
The multivariate logistic regression is in the form as exhibited
in Eq. (1)
logitðpÞ ¼ c0 þ c1x1 þ c2x2 þ c3x3 þ · · · þ cnxn ð1Þ
© ASCE 04522037-6
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037
Description
A project’s success depends on the area of project land (m2 ). The greater
the project land area, the more is the registrations of allottees, thus
leading to disputes between the promoter and the allottees, leading to
delay.
The type of project also leads to the delay. The following details are
available for a project related to project type, and a numeric value is
assigned to each one of them for analysis:.
1 = residential; 2 = commercial; 3 = mixed (residential and
commercial); and 4 = plotted (division of land)
The time of project’s completion as submitted by the promoter during
the registration of the project (this also includes automatic extension
received due to Covid-19, extension period has been considered in the
registration validity).
The website provides us the following project cost categories and is
represented as follows:
1 ¼ <50 crore; 2 ¼ 50–100 crore; 3 ¼ >100 crore; and 4 = not
known.
0 = no delay (for projects whose Form 4a is submitted within the project
validity OR whose validity is yet to lapse).
1 = delay (for projects whose Form 4a is not submitted within the project
validity).
where logitðpÞ ¼ logðoddsÞ ¼ logðp=1 − pÞ; p = probability of
delay; and c0 = intercept; c1, c2, c3, cn = coefficients of variables
x1, x2, x3, xn, respectively.
The odds ratio (OR) quantifies how strongly an occurrence is
linked to exposure. The OR compares the likelihood of an event
happening in the presence of a certain exposure to the likelihood
of that outcome occurring in the absence of that exposure (Szumilas
2010). The greater the odds ratio, the more likely the event with
exposure will occur. The odds ratio less than 1 indicates that the
occurrence is less likely to occur due to the exposure. They allow
us to use logistic regression to investigate the influence of other
factors on that connection (Bland and Altman 2000). The regres-
sion coefficient in logistic regression is the estimated increase in the
log odds of the outcome per unit increase in the exposure value. In
other words, the odds ratio associated with a one-unit increase in
exposure is the exponential function of the regression coefficient
(Andrade 2015; Szumilas 2010). The odds of delay are defined
by the function as shown in Eq. (2)
 
probability of delay
Odds of delay ¼
1 − probability of delay
¼ ec0þc1x1þc2x2þc3x3þ · · · þcnxn ð2Þ
The relation in Eq. (3) shows the percentage change in odds
Percentage change in odds
¼ ðExponentiated coefficient − 1.0Þ × 100 ð3Þ
where, the exponentiated coefficient is the transformation (antilog)
of the original logistic coefficient, i.e., odds of the delay due to a
variable while assuming the other variables are fixed. Exponenti-
ated coefficients directly reflect the magnitude of the change in the
odds value and are more helpful in determining the magnitude of
the relationship than the original logistic coefficient. An exponen-
tiated coefficient of 1 denotes no change in the outcome, and the
values above 1.0 denote a positive relationship while values less
than 1.0 reflect a negative relationship.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Dispute Resolution Mechanism under RERA Act
Maharashtra RERA (MahaRERA 2021) is India’s first real estate
regulatory authority to establish a Conciliation and Dispute Reso-
lution Forum as per Section 32(g) of the act. It was constituted
to ensure speedy disposal of the complaints, and promote and
popularize amicable and effective settlement of disputes arising
between the allottees/promoter/real estate agents. The Authority
had provided a swift complaint filing and redressal mechanism,
but usually, many complaints were withdrawn as an agreement
between the complainant and the respondent was reached. Thus,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
MahaRERA constituted this forum. The conciliation procedure
followed by MahaRERA is outlined in brief:
1. Online application on the conciliation forum (CF) portal needs
to be filed by the complainant. The other party will automati-
cally receive an e-mail regarding the same.
2. The other party must give their consent for conciliation within
7 days.
3. After their consent, the complainant must pay the necessary fees
of ₹1,000 plus relevant taxes.
4. Within 7 days, the appropriately assigned bench will decide the
date, time, and venue of the first hearing, which must be con-
ducted within 15 days, and the complaint must be completed
within 60 days of the date of hearing.
5. Parties, in person or their authorized representatives, must be
present. Conciliators will facilitate dispute resolution between
the parties informally.
6. If a settlement is reached through mutual consensus, it shall be
binding to both parties. The forum, in this event, must record the
proceeding in the Roznama (register of the daily proceedings of
a court case maintained in every Indian court) and refer the same
to MahaRERA with the signed conciliation terms. After passing
the final order by MahaRERA, the complaint will be treated as
disposed of.
7. Suppose a settlement is not reached or the proceeding takes a
considerable time in arriving at a consensus. In that case, the
complaint will be transferred back to MahaRERA within 1 week,
and further proceedings will occur as per their procedure.
MahaRERA has disposed of more than 60% of the total com-
plaints received until November 1, 2021. The rest are in the process
of hearing. The CF received 798 complaints, out of which 714 have
been completed (MahaRERA 2021).
Withdrawn
Not under the discretion of RERA
Causes of Disputes
Non-registered projects
Non-quality construction
Facilities/Amenities not as per brochure
Documentation lapses
Delayed Possession
0 5
Fig. 2. Causes of disputes in Surat district under the RERA Act.
© ASCE
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037
Conversely, Gujarat RERA (GujRERA 2021), to date, has no
such conciliation forum, but is in process of establishing the
same. The Authority or the adjudicating officer themselves re-
solve the complaints posed by the complainants. The aggrieved
stakeholders submit their complaints online by paying a minimal
amount as prescribed. Once the Authority initiates the complaint,
the same has to be disposed of within 60 days from the receipt of
the complaint as per Section 29(4) of the act. The Authority
understands the situation and the criticism, and the aggrieved are
given numerous times to be heard. The respondent also presents
their case. On understanding and considering their problems, an
order is formulated and passed to that effect which is binding by
both the parties.
Analysis
From Table 2, it can be observed that disputes under RERA are
primarily between the promoter (builder) and the allottee (home-
buyers). Some cases do not lie under the discretion of RERA or
were withdrawn due to some of the other reasons. However, some
of the complaints filed due to one or more of the previously causes
of disputes but later dismissed are also included. The cases were
categorized based on various causes of disputes, as shown in Fig. 2
discussed for RERA-registered projects.
It can be observed that the complaint filed under the dispute
category “documentation lapses” are the highest, with 31 com-
plaints registered for the same, followed by 13 complaints related
to facilities or the amenities not as per the brochure or sanctioned
plans. Complaints related to delayed possession and nonquality
construction are only 8 and 4, respectively. Hence, the developer
must give proper care in averting the major issues, leading to dis-
putes and subsequent delays in the project.
The logistic regression analysis was undertaken for the following
independent variables: (1) total area of project land (x1); (2) project
type (whether residential, commercial, mixed, or plotted) (x2);
(3) project registration validity (x3); and (4) project cost category
(x4) and delay as the dependent variable (Z). A detailed description
of the variables is shown in Table 3.
The analysis was performed on Microsoft Excel using the
Solver function. The final form of the logistic regression equation
is shown in Eq. (4)
10 15 20 25 30 35
No. of disputes (Frequency)
04522037-7 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Table 4. Interpretation of coefficients
Exponentiated
Variables Variable name Coefficient coefficient Interpretation
Intercept — −2.9481 0.05 —
x1 Project land area −0.0001 0.9999 There is a 0.01% decrease in the odds of delay of a project if the
area of project land increases by one unit (m2 )
x2 Project type 0.9474 2.5789 There is a 158% increase in the odds of delay of a project if the
project type increases by one level
x3 Project registration validity −0.0283 0.9721 There is a 279% decrease in the odds of delay of a project if the
registration validity increases by 1 month
x4 Project cost category 1.7581 5.8015 There is a 480% increase in the odds of delay of the project if the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

project cost category increases by one level

Table 5. Confusion matrix

logitðpÞ ¼ −2.9481 − ð0.0001Þx1 þ ð0.9474Þx2
Predicted
− ð0.0283Þx3 þ ð1.7581Þx4 ð4Þ
Actual 0 1 Total
0 29 (TN) 1 (FP) 30
1 2 (FN) 4 (TP) 6
Results and Discussions
Total 31 5 36
The interpretation of the coefficients of the logistic regression
model is described in Table 4. From Table 4, it is clear that the
delays occurring in the project due to whatsoever reasons are more
susceptible to the change in the project cost category, i.e., if the Table 6. Common performance matrix calculated from confusion matrix
project cost category increases by one level (for example, from 1 ¼
Value corresponding
<50 crore project, to 2 ¼ 50–100 crore project), the odds that a Index Formulae to cut-off value = 0.3
particular project will be delayed increases by 480%. Likewise,
if the project type increases by one level, there is a 158% increase Accuracy ðTP þ TNÞ=N 91.7%
Precision TP=ðTP þ FPÞ 80.0%
in the odds of the delay of a project. In other words, the odds for
Sensitivity/recall TP=actualpositive 66.7%
project delay are 158% higher concerning the increase in the Specificity TN=ðFP þ TNÞ 96.7%
project type level. True positive rate TP/actual positive 0.667
The delay model is inversely related to the project land area and False positive rate FP/actual negative 0.033
the registration validity. However, there is only a 0.01% decrease in
Note: TP = true positive; FP = false positive; FN = false negative;
the odds of delay of a project when the project land area increases
and TN = true negative; 0 = no delay; and 1 = delay.
by one unit. In other words, the value of logit close to 0 indicates
an odds value approximately equal to 1.0 (as is evident in Table 4)
and a probability of 0.5, which means there is a 50-50 chance that a
project may get delayed if the project land area is increased by one
unit. Correspondingly, if the registration validity is increased by 80% of the correctly predicted cases turn out to be positive, while
one unit, the odds of the project delay are decreased by 279%. This this developed model successfully predicted only 66.7% of the pos-
means that if the project duration from the particular period is large itives. In this case, more weight must be given to accuracy, as pre-
enough, then the chances of that project getting delayed are dras- dicting whether the project will get delayed is essential to take
tically reduced. constructive steps in this regard. Hence, at a cut-off value of 0.3,
the accuracy obtained is the highest, thus this value is fixed based
on the confusion matrix.
Sensitivity Analysis With regard to the ROC graph (Fawcett 2004), values on the left
A cut-off value of 0.3 was set on the basis of the confusion side of the graph, near the X-axis, may be considered conservative.
matrix and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) graph. It means that the values generate positive classifications only when
A n × n confusion matrix connected with a classifier displays there is strong evidence, resulting in minimal false positive errors,
the anticipated and actual classification, where n is the number but these values frequently have low true positive rates as well.
of possible classes (Visa et al. 2011; Indra et al. 2016). The Classifiers on the top right side of an ROC curve are considered
confusion matrix for cut-off value 0.3 is as displayed in Table 5. liberal, which means that the values generate positive classifica-
The common performance indices calculated from the confu- tions with little evidence; therefore, properly categorize virtually
sion matrix is shown in Table 6. Sensitivity analysis for differ- all positives, but these values frequently have significant false
ent cut-off values was performed and shown in Fig. 3. A plot of positive rates. Based on this, in Fig. 4, a value of 0.2 represents
true positive (TP) rate on the Y-axis and false positive (FP) rate a higher FP rate than 0.3, and the value of 0.3 represents a higher
on the X-axis for different cut-off values is illustrated in Fig. 4 TP rate for the same FP rate than 0.4. Thus, the value correspond-
called as ROC graph. A ROC graph illustrates the relative trade- ing to 0.3 is more conservative than the value corresponding to 0.2
offs between gains (true positives) and expenses (false positives) as the former is toward the left side of the graph and thus the value
(Fawcett 2004). of 0.3 can satisfactorily be chosen as the cut-off value. This means
Fig. 3 represents the variation in accuracy, precision, and recall that on substituting the values for any particular project, if the
values for different cut-off values. With a cut-off value of 0.3, de- output of the model is greater than 0.3, the project is likely to get
lays in the projects can be predicted 91.7% of the time. A total of delayed.

© ASCE 04522037-8 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037

 120.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%
Percentage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

-20.0%
Cut-off value
Accuracy Precision Recall

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis.

1.2

0
1

0.2 0.1
0.8
0.3
True Positive (TP) Rate

0.6
0.4

0.4

0.5
0.2 0.6

0.7 0.8
0.9
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

-0.2
False Positive (FP) Rate

Fig. 4. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) graph.

Robustness Analysis
The concept of robustness is crucial to comprehending the appli-
cation of the developed model and, thus the inferences derived from
the model. The definition of robustness is the level of sensitivity of
a model to its assumptions (Jaselskis and Ashley 1991). For exam-
ple, the robustness of the developed model can be investigated by
asking numerous questions whether the model can be applied to
variability in the data. There are several techniques for determining
the robustness of models. Comparing anticipated model values to
actual results for different project features is a concise method
(Russell and Jaselskis 1992).
Table 7 represents the percentage of delayed and nondelayed
disputed projects for several criteria. Based on the study conducted
by Russell and Jaselskis (1992), the authors defined five probability
categories: P < 19.9%; 20% < P < 39.9%; 40% < P < 59.9%;
60% <P < 79.9%; and P > 80%. The value of P denotes the pre-
dicted probability from the developed model. Certain tendencies
may be noticed, but it is difficult to make explicit conclusions re-
garding the robustness of these models for each category of project

© ASCE 04522037-9 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037

 Table 7. Classification of disputed projects based on predicted values involving delay or no delay (robustness analysis)
Range of probability
P < 19.9% 20% < P < 39.9% 40% < P < 59.9% 60% < P < 79.9% P > 80%
Factors Delay No delay Delay No delay Delay No delay Delay No delay Delay No delay
Project land area
<10,000 m2 (%) 20 95 0 14 40 0 0 0 0 0
>10,000 m2 (%) 0 78 0 11 0 11 100 0 0 0
Project type
Residential (%) 50 81 50 13 0 6 0 0 0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Commercial (%) 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

Mixed (%) 0 100 0 100 67 0 0 0 0 0
Plotted (%) 0 80 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project registration validity
<60 months (%) 25 82 75 12 25 6 0 0 0 0
>60 months (%) 0 85 50 15 0 0 50 0 0 0
Project cost category
<50 crore (%) 0 100 33 0 67 0 0 0 0 0
>50 crore (%) 0 25 50 50 0 25 50 0 0 0

delay. One would expect to find a higher percentage of delayed
projects in predicted probability categories close to 100% and
few delayed projects in categories closer to 0%.
Model predictions greater than 40% will most likely result in
delay. The majority of the projects in this category were correctly
classified as delayed, taking into account all project characteristics.
This model appears robust in that it can predict the outcomes of all
types of projects: residential, commercial, mixed, or plotted; proj-
ects with durations less than or greater than 60 months; variability
in project size; and cost. A small percentage of delayed projects fell
into the P < 19.9% category. This means that even if the model
predicts probability of less than 40%, there is still a possibility that
this project is really delayed.
The model predicts that probabilities less than approximately
20% will most likely result in nondelayed projects. This model ap-
pears robust in that it can predict the outcomes of all types of proj-
ects. A small percentage of nondelayed projects were classified into
the 40% < P < 59.9% category. This means that even if the model
predicts a probability of greater than 40% and less than 60%, there
is still a possibility that the project is not delayed.
In general, the model appears to perform well in predicting
delayed projects when the predicted probability is greater than
40%. Sensitivity analysis also provided a cut-off value of 0.3
(30%). However, it is unknown if a project will be delayed when
the probability is less than 40%. The model appears to be useful
for many wide range of real estate project characteristics. For ex-
ample, the model can be used for any project type, small or large
real estate projects in terms of area and cost with higher or lower
duration.
Conclusions
Construction project disputes constitute a significant source of
concern for the industry. The historic Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act 2016 marks the beginning of a new era in the
Indian real estate sector and a start toward reforming this sector,
promoting more openness, citizen centricity, accountability, and fi-
nancial discipline (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2021).
The prior missing gap between the allottees (homebuyers) and the
promoters (developers), has now constructively been created and is
highlighted in the current study, and rationalization of the dispute
resolving mechanism in the context of real estate in India has also
been emphasized.
An analysis of the various judgments filed under RERA estab-
lished that the allottees and the promoters need to primarily con-
centrate on the various forms of documentation occurring between
them due to its high frequency of occurrence. Even though the fre-
quency of other causes of disputes is comparatively less than the
disputes due to documentation lapses, the same may be a leading
cause of concern in other cities, and so all of these issues must be
looked upon with due attention to avoid the subsequent harsh pro-
cess of dispute which ultimately leads to the delay of a project.
This study also proposed to model the relation concerning the
data available on the website of GujRERA, i.e., project land area,
project type, project registration validity, and project cost category.
The logistic regression analysis was performed for the disputed
projects, and the significant variable responsible for the delay of
a project was evaluated to be the project cost. As the project cost
increases, the odds of a project getting delayed increases by 480%.
There is also a positive relationship between delay and project type.
Mixed developments, i.e., commercial and residential projects,
have higher odds of getting delayed than residential and commer-
cial projects alone as they are usually high-scale projects with
greater allottees. There is a negligible effect of project land area
on the project’s delay. Also, if the registration validity increases,
i.e., if the project duration increases, the odds of the project getting
delayed reduces by 279%. Hence, a developer must take utmost
care in handling higher-cost projects and mixed development proj-
ects in minimizing disputes, ultimately not leading to delay of the
project. This study can augment proficiency in the dispute resolu-
tion and claims management system adopted by the RERA.
The logistic regression model can be applied for future projects,
and the delay can be predicted. The cut-off value of 0.3 was chosen
for maximum accurate results. The model formulated in the present
study was limited to the four project characteristics available for the
private real estate projects registered on the GujRERA website
(GujRERA 2021). The exact actual estimated project cost incurred
was not available on the portal, and history and experiences of con-
tractors were not available for all projects; hence, such data can be
extracted from relevant sources, and the model can be redesigned.
This study attempts to analyze the secondary data available on the
website of RERA and find out the causes of delays of the real estate

© ASCE 04522037-10 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037

 projects in India. Outcomes of this study can be useful to control
occurrences of the disputes and aid the relevant authorities in
amending the act in future.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request. The item includes the analysis of delay model using logis-
tic regression analysis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Supplemental Materials
Table S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary
.org).
References
List of Statutes
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Act Number 16
of 2016, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
Works Cited
Acharya, N. K., Y. D. Lee, and H. M. Lim. 2006. “Conflict factors in con-
struction projects: Korean perspective.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.
13 (6): 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980610712364.
Andrade, C. 2015. “Understanding relative risk, odds ratio, and related
terms: As simple as it can get.” J. Clin. Psychiatry 76 (7): e857–e861.
https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.15f10150.
Bajaj Finserv. 2021. “MahaRERA: Know about RERA Act in Maharash-
tra.” Accessed March 26, 2022. https://www.bajajfinserv.in/insights/all
-you-need-to-know-about-maharera-in-maharashtra.
Barman, A., and C. Charoenngam. 2017. “Decisional uncertainties in
construction projects as a cause of disputes and their formal legal in-
terpretation by the courts: Review of legal cases in the United Kingdom.”
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 04517011. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000222.
Bektas, S., M. T. Birgonul, and I. Dikmen. 2021. “Integrated probabilistic
delay analysis method to estimate outcome of construction delay dis-
putes.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 13 (1): 04520037.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000439.
Bland, J. M., and D. G. Altman. 2000. “The odds ratio.” BMJ 320 (7247):
1468. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7247.1468.
Chan, A. P. C., D. C. K. Ho, and C. M. Tam. 2001. “Design and build
project success factors: Multivariate analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
127 (2): 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)
127:2(93).
Chen, Y. Q., J. Y. Liu, B. Li, and B. Lin. 2011. “Project delivery system
selection of construction projects in China.” Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (5):
5456–5462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.008.
Cheung, S. O., S. T. Ng, K. C. Lam, and W. S. Sin. 2001. “A fuzzy sets
model for construction dispute evaluation.” Constr. Innovation 1 (2):
117–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170110814550.
Cheung, S. O., and K. H. Y. Pang. 2013. “Anatomy of construction dis-
putes.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (1): 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000532.
Chou, J. S., S. C. Hsu, C. W. Lin, and Y. C. Chang. 2016. “Classifying
influential information to discover rule sets for project disputes and pos-
sible resolutions.” Int. J. Project Manage. 34 (8): 1706–1716. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.001.
Civil Service India. 2018. “Real estate industry in India—An overview.”
Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.civilserviceindia.com/current
-affairs/articles/real-estate-industry-in-India.html.
© ASCE 04522037-11
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037
Deep, S., M. Asim, N. Kesarwani, and S. Kandpal. 2018. “Identification of
delay causing actor in the Indian real estate project: An AHP-based
approach.” Baltic J. Real Estate Econ. Constr. Manage. 6 (1): 116–130.
https://doi.org/10.2478/bjreecm-2018-0009.
Diekmann, J. E., and M. J. Girard. 1995. “Are contract disputes predict-
able?” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 121 (4): 355–363. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:4(355).
du Preez, O. 2014. “Conciliation: A founding element in claims manage-
ment.” Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 119 (5): 115–123. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.015.
Fawcett, T. 2004. “ROC graphs: Notes and practical considerations for
researchers.” Mach. Learn. 31 (1): 1–38.
Fenn, P., D. Lowe, and C. Speck. 1997. “Conflict and dispute in construc-
tion.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 15 (6): 513–518. https://doi.org/10
.1080/014461997372719.
GujRERA (Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority). 2021. “Home.”
Accessed October 17, 2021. https://gujrera.gujarat.gov.in/.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2018. Multivariate
data analysis. Boston: Cengage.
Hariharan, G. G., R. Patkar, and R. Neshat. 2021. “Real estate market size
20/21.” Accessed March 24, 2022. https://www.msci.com/documents
/10199/a4535e8e-3b0d-f34d-4a0b-dc73058f7469.
IBEF (Indian Brand Equity Foundation). 2021. “Indian real estate indus-
try.” Accessed November 10, 2021. https://www.ibef.org/industry/real
-estate-india.aspx.
Illankoon, I. M. C. S., V. W. Y. Tam, K. N. Le, and K. A. T. O. Ranadewa.
2019. “Causes of disputes, factors affecting dispute resolution and
effective alternative dispute resolution for Sri Lankan construction
industry.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 22 (2): 218–228. https://doi.org/10
.1080/15623599.2019.1616415.
Ilter, D. A., and G. Bakioglu. 2018. “Modeling the relationship between
risk and dispute in subcontractor contracts.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Res-
olut. Eng. Constr. 10 (1): 04517022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
LA.1943-4170.0000246.
Indian Express. 2018. “State has highest project registrations under RERA.”
Accessed March 25, 2022. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/state
-has-highest-project-registrations-under-rera-5092563/.
Indra, S. T., L. Wikarsa, and R. Turang. 2016. “Using logistic regression
method to classify tweets into the selected topics.” In Proc., 2016 Int.
Conf. on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems,
385–390. New York: IEEE.
Invest India. 2021. “Real estate.” Accessed November 9, 2021. https://www
.investindia.gov.in/sector/construction/real-estate-commercial.
Investopedia. 2022. “No longer nomads: The history of real estate.” Accessed
March 29, 2022. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/history-real
-estate.asp.
Irfan, M., M. B. Khurshid, P. Anastasopoulos, S. Labi, and F. Moavenzadeh.
2011. “Planning-stage estimation of highway project duration on the
basis of anticipated project cost, project type, and contract type.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 29 (1): 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010
.01.001.
Jaselskis, E. J., and D. B. Ashley. 1991. “Optimal allocation of project
management resources for achieving success.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
117 (2): 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1991)
117:2(321).
Konchar, M., and V. Sanvido. 1998. “Comparison of U.S. project delivery
systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 124 (6): 435–444. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:6(435).
Kumaraswamy, M. 1997. “Conflicts, claims and disputes in construction.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 4 (2): 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1108
/eb021042.
Ling, F. Y. Y., S. L. Chan, E. Chong, and L. P. Ee. 2004. “Predicting per-
formance of design-build and design-bid-build projects.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 130 (1): 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2004)130:1(75).
Ling, F. Y. Y., and M. Liu. 2004. “Using neural network to predict perfor-
mance of design-build projects in Singapore.” Build. Environ. 39 (10):
1263–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.008.
Liu, B., T. Huo, Y. Liang, Y. Sun, and X. Hu. 2016. “Key factors of project
characteristics affecting project delivery system decision making in the
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Chinese construction industry: Case Study using Chinese data based on
rough set theory.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 142 (4): 05016003. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000278.
Luu, D. T., S. T. Ng, and S. E. Chen. 2003. “Parameters governing the selec-
tion of procurement system—An empirical survey.” Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manage. 10 (3): 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980310478458.
Mafakheri, F., L. Dai, D. Slezak, and F. Nasiri. 2007. “Project delivery
system selection under uncertainty: Multicriteria multilevel decision
aid model.” J. Manage. Eng. 23 (4): 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:4(200).
Magdy, M., M. Georgy, H. Osman, and M. Elsaid. 2019. “Delay analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Natl Inst. Of Cons. Mgmt & Rsrch (nicmar) on 07/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
methodologies used by engineering and construction firms in Egypt.”
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 11 (3): 04519006. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000293.
Mahamid, I. 2017. “Analysis of common factors leading to conflicts
between contractors and their subcontractors in building construction
projects.” Aust. J. Multi-Discip. Eng. 13 (1): 18–28. https://doi.org/10
.1080/14488388.2017.1342515.
MahaRERA (Maharshtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority). 2021. “Home.”
Accessed November 11, 2021. https://maharera.mahaonline.gov.in.
Mahdi, I. M., and K. Alreshaid. 2005. “Decision support system for selecting
the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process
(AHP).” Int. J. Project Manage. 23 (7): 564–572. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.007.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. 2021. “Real estate regulation and
development act, 2016.” Accessed October 25, 2021. https://mohua.gov
.in/cms/real-estate-regulation-and-development-act-2016.php.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. 2022. “RERA implementation
progress report.” Accessed March 24, 2022. https://mohua.gov.in
/upload/uploadfiles/files/rera-status-19-03-2022.pdf.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. 2012. “Report of
the technical group on urban housing shortage (TG-12) (2012-17).”
Accessed March 24, 2022. http://nbo.nic.in/pdf/urban-housing-shortage
.pdf.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 2020. “Reforms in real estate
sector RERA-2016.” Accessed February 10, 2022. https://static.pib.gov
.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2021/sep/doc202191751.pdf.
Ministry of Law and Justice. 2016. The real estate (regulation and
development) act, 2016, act number 16 of 2016. New Delhi, India:
Government of India.
Mitkus, S., and T. Mitkus. 2014. “Causes of conflicts in a construction
industry: A communicational approach.” Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 110 (Dec):
777–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.922.
Money Control. 2021. “Realty contribution to GDP to reach 10% by 2025:
Official.” Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.moneycontrol.com
/news/business/real-estate/realty-contribution-to-gdp-to-reach-10-by
-2025-official-7248301.html.
Moneylife Foundation. 2020. “Efficacy of real estate regulation and devel-
opment act, 2016 (RERA) from the consumer perspective.” Accessed
February 16, 2022. https://www.mlfoundation.in/media/uploads/article
/pdf/RERA-MASTERFILE-2020-25186758031232.pdf.
© ASCE 04522037-12
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2023, 15(1): 04522037
Moore, C. W., R. Jayasundere, and M. Thirunavukarasu. 2014. The media-
tion process practical: Strategies for resolving conflict. New York:
Wiley.
Mostafavi, A., and M. Karamouz. 2010. “Selecting appropriate project
delivery system: Fuzzy approach with risk analysis.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 136 (8): 923–930. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000190.
NDTV (New Delhi Television Ltd.). 2021. “Swachh Survekshan 2021
results: Top highlights of the annual cleanliness survey.” Accessed
June 7, 2022. https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/swachh-survekshan-2021
-results-top-highlights-of-the-annual-cleanliness-survey-64882/.
Parikh, D., G. J. Joshi, and D. A. Patel. 2019. “Development of prediction
models for claim cause analyses in highway projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dis-
pute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 11 (4): 04519018. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000303.
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban. 2022. “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.”
Accessed March 25, 2022. https://pmaymis.gov.in/.
RERA Filing. 2019. “Disclosures to be made by promoter on RERA
website.” Accessed on March 26, 2022. https://www.rerafiling.com/rera
-article-detail.php/620/disclosures-to-be-made-by-promoter-on-rera
-website.
Russell, J. S., and E. J. Jaselskis. 1992. “Predicting construction contractor
failure prior to contract award.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 118 (4):
791–811. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:4(791).
Shalaby, Y., and A. Khalafallah. 2018. “Change order disputes: Technical
causes and negative effects in Kuwait.” In Proc., ASCE Construction
Research Congress 2018, 315–325. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Shen, L. Y., W. S. Lu, and M. C. Yam. 2006. “Contractor key competitiveness
indicators: A China study.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (4): 416–424.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:4(416).
Statistics Times. 2021. “Sector-wise GDP of India.” Accessed October 25,
2021. https://statisticstimes.com/economy/country/india-gdp-sectorwise
.php.
Surat Municipal Corporation. 2022. “Surat city—An introduction.” Accessed
June 7, 2022. https://www.suratmunicipal.gov.in/TheCity/AboutCity.
Szumilas, M. 2010. “Explaining odds ratios.” J. Can. Acad. Child Adolesc.
Psychiatry 19 (3): 227–229.
The Economic Times. 2017. “Housing shortage in urban areas down at
10 million units: Government.” Accessed March 24, 2022. https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/housing
-shortage-in-urban-areas-down-at-10-million-units-government/article
show/61657624.cms.
The Economic Times. 2018. “Surat to be world’s fastest growing city dur-
ing 2019-35: Report.” Accessed June 6, 2022. https://economictimes
.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/surat-to-be-worlds-fastest
-growing-city-during-2019-35-report/articleshow/66991793.cms?
from=mdr.
Udeaja, C., C. Trillo, K. G. B. Awuah, B. C. N. Makore, D. A. Patel, L. E.
Mansuri, and K. N. Jha. 2020. “Urban heritage conservation and rapid
urbanization: Insights from Surat, India.” Sustainability 12 (6): 2172.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062172.
Visa, S., B. Ramsay, A. L. Ralescu, and E. V. D. Knaap. 2011. “Confusion
matrix-based feature selection.” MAICS 710 (4): 120–127.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.