An appeal by M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt Ltd –– a Special Purpose Vehicle of M/s Adani Infrastructure and Developer Pvt Ltd –– against the rejection of registration for project “The Dome Centre”, Sector 29, Gurugram, has failed to find favour with Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.It has upheld the orders passed by Gurugram Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, which had held that the proposed infrastructure did not qualify as a “real estate project” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.The tribunal was told that Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) decided to develop infrastructure, including a multi-level parking-cum-commercial infrastructure, through private participation on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. Accordingly, competitive proposals were invited. Application for registration dated April 8, 2025, was submitted by Inspire based on an agreement.The authority held that the agreement was revocable in nature, the land title remained vested with HSVP, and the applicant did not intend to sell any units of the project to the public. As such, the proposed infrastructure did not qualify as a “real estate project”.It was also held that the applicant did not fall within the definition of a “promoter”. Accordingly, the authority held that the present application for registration under Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, was not maintainable, “being inconsistent with the statutory framework”.In the appeal placed before the bench of Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Member (Technical) Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Inspire assailed the impugned order on several grounds, contending among other things that it was entitled to get registered under the Act, being occupier of the land in question.After hearing Inspire and senior counsel Puneet Bali for Regulatory Authority, the tribunal upheld the orders passed on October 30, 2025.Referring to the statutory provisions, including the definition of ‘allottee’, the tribunal asserted it showed element of transfer of a plot, apartment or building by way of sale, free-hold or lease hold.“The prime question to be determined is whether there is element of transfer of the plot, apartment or building involved vis-a-vis HSVP and appellant and the rights visited in appellant for any further sale or transfer by way of lease hold or otherwise.”Speaking for the tribunal, Justice Gupta asserted: “The facts of the case clearly show that status of appellant was that of an entity to develop the infrastructure, i.e. multi-level parking-cum-commercial infrastructure, build, operate and transfer the same to HSVP after a specified period of time… The entire infrastructure would continue to vest in HSVP. The appellant being concessionaire has no right to further transfer by sale, lease or otherwise any part of the property/commercial infrastructure.”Justice Gupta added the appellant’s status was that of an investor for raising infrastructure for HSVP and to recover its investment from the operation of parking lot and licencing out the commercial spaces. “Hence, the status of appellant is not more than that of a licensee. The basic requirement of the Act to qualify as an ‘allottee’ is altogether missing in the case of appellant.”Justice Gupta added the tribunal was of the considered view that the order passed by the authority as legally justifiable. “The instant appeal is devoid of merits and is here by dismissed.”