The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Committee’s April 2026 report highlights that real estate insolvency requires a project-centric, completion-focused approach rather than traditional recovery mechanisms. It identifies systemic issues such as fragmented project structures, lack of reliable data, frozen escrow accounts, regulatory uncertainties, delayed approvals, and weak post-resolution monitoring, all of which hinder timely project completion and adversely impact homebuyers. The report notes that insolvency in this sector affects housing security for lakhs of individuals, making it a matter of public interest. To address these challenges, the Committee recommends project-wise insolvency admission, mandatory technical and cost assessments, operational escrow accounts, standardized procedures for authorities, fast-track approval revalidation, stronger homebuyer representation, and enhanced monitoring through RERA integration. It also emphasizes enforcing the “clean slate” principle and discouraging reverse CIRP practices. Overall, the report advocates a shift toward ensuring project completion, protecting homebuyers, and restoring trust in the insolvency framework.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Press Release No. IBBI/PR/2026/7 | Dated: 08th April 2026
Subject: Committee on Framing Guidelines for Insolvency Proceedings in the Real Estate Sector submits its Report to Chairperson, IBBI
The Committee on Framing Guidelines for Insolvency Proceedings in the Real Estate Sector submitted its Report to the Chairperson, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), Shri Ravi Mital, on 7 April 2026.
2. The IBBI had constituted a Committee pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 12 September 2025 in the matter of Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the IBBI, in consultation with Real Estate Regulatory Authorities (RERAs), to frame sector-specific guidelines for real estate insolvency, including timelines for project-wise corporate insolvency resolution processes and safeguards for allottees.
3. The Committee was chaired by Shri Jayanti Prasad, Whole Time Member, IBBI, and comprised representatives from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, RERA Uttar Pradesh, RERA Haryana (Gurugram), All India Forum of RERAs and Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran.
4. In discharging its mandate, the Committee adopted a consultative and evidence-based approach. It undertook extensive stakeholder consultations across financial institutions, industry representatives, homebuyer associations, insolvency professionals, successful resolution applicants, domain experts and former adjudicating authority members, and analysed judicial pronouncements, empirical data, and practical experiences from real estate insolvency cases.
5. The Report recognises that real estate insolvency presents unique challenges, as it directly affects large numbers of homebuyers whose primary expectation is completion and delivery of homes rather than financial recovery. It highlights the need for a shift from an entity-centric, recovery-focused framework to a project-centric, completion-driven approach, with stronger coordination between the IBC and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
6. The Committee has examined 55 key issues affecting real estate insolvency and has made 155 recommendations covering structural, procedural, and institutional aspects of the framework. These recommendations are aimed at improving efficiency, ensuring timely completion of projects, enhancing stakeholder confidence, and strengthening alignment between insolvency processes and sectoral regulation.
7. The full report is available on the website of IBBI at https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/resources/e3843d2d5ab054f330e159b28b7dc3a4.pdf .
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Report of the Committee on Framing Guidelines for Insolvency Proceedings in Real Estate Sector
April 2026
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Nearly a decade after the enactment of the IBC and the RERA Act, India’s framework for addressing distress in the real estate sector stands at a decisive crossroads. While these legislations have individually introduced transparency, debtor discipline and consumer protection, experience has demonstrated that the insolvency of real estate enterprises presents challenges fundamentally distinct from those encountered in other sectors. Real estate insolvency is not confined to financial restructuring; it directly implicates and impacts the housing security of millions of individual homebuyers whose primary expectation is delivery of homes rather than monetary recovery.
2. Judicial evolution under the IBC has progressively recognised this uniqueness. The classification of homebuyers as the Financial Creditors (FCs) marked a paradigm shift, acknowledging the commercial reality that homebuyer funds function as project finance. Subsequent jurisprudence has sought to reconcile insolvency principles with project completion imperatives through project-specific resolution approaches and court-monitored completion frameworks, and safeguards against speculative misuse of insolvency remedies. However, these adaptations have largely emerged through case-by-case judicial innovation rather than a settled normative framework, resulting in uneven and delayed outcomes and persistent uncertainty.
3. This Report responds to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors., which called for sector-specific guidelines to put in place a completion-centric and homebuyer-sensitive insolvency regime. The Committee’s mandate was to examine systemic bottlenecks in real estate insolvency, assess the adequacy of existing legal and regulatory mechanisms, and recommend measures that align insolvency processes with economic reality, regulatory coherence, and constitutional values.
4. The Committee’s examination of insolvency data reveals that the real estate sector constitutes one of the largest and most complex segments within the insolvency ecosystem. Hundreds of real estate cases have been admitted since the Code’s inception. A large proportion of these cases have been closed through resolution, settlement, review, withdrawal and liquidation. However, several cases are still ongoing.
5. The consequences of this stagnation are profound. Ongoing and resolved insolvency cases together affect nearly a quarter of a million homebuyers, translating into housing insecurity for close to a million individuals when household size is considered. For these stakeholders, insolvency is not an abstract legal process, but a prolonged period of uncertainty marked by continued rental burdens, loan servicing without possession, and erosion of trust in institutional mechanisms. The Committee therefore approaches insolvency reform in real estate not merely as a commercial necessity but as a matter of public interest.
Core structural issues identified by the Committee
6. The Committee has identified 55 critical issues, discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this Report, which constitute the primary bottlenecks in the resolution of real estate projects. Some of the significant ones are mentioned as follows:
6.1. Fragmented project structures and multi-entity arrangements
6.1.1. Real estate projects are frequently structured through special purpose vehicles (SPVs), with land ownership, development rights, and financing distributed across multiple related entities. In structures prevalent in jurisdictions such as NOIDA and Greater NOIDA, land is owned by development authorities, while development rights are vested in one group entity, and another group entity may be subject to the insolvency proceedings.
6.1.2. When insolvency proceedings are initiated against the entity holding development rights, development authorities often invoke lease cancellation or other enforcement mechanisms, rendering resolution plans commercially unviable. In several cases, landowners have unilaterally terminated joint development agreements upon commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Code, leading to prolonged litigation and project stagnation.
6.1.3. Projects of the corporate debtor (CD) that are otherwise solvent or nearing completion also become trapped when the CD has multiple projects under a common insolvency process, as moratorium restrictions and lender control are applied across all projects. Since land constitutes the core asset of real estate projects, unresolved land rights, particularly where land is owned by a related entity rather than the CD, severely undermine title transfer and the feasibility of resolution.
6.2. Absence of reliable technical and cost data before the invitation of resolution plans
6.2.1. Resolution professionals (RPs) and resolution applicants (RAs) have consistently highlighted the absence of reliable technical, planning, and cost-related information at the stage when resolution plans are invited. Independent assessments of cost-to-complete, detailed pending work schedules, and construction sequencing data are generally unavailable.
6.2.2. Information Memorandum (IM) frequently omit critical details relating to approvals, pending regulatory challenges and approval validity timelines, preventing prospective RAs from accurately evaluating project viability. Discrepancies across developer records, RERA databases, and escrow accounts further compound information gaps. As a result, only a limited number of developers participate in many processes, as bidders are unable to price risks or commit to binding timelines without credible baseline data.
6.2.3. This information asymmetry leads to reduced competition, sub-optimal resolution outcomes, and unrealistic completion schedules that ultimately disadvantage homebuyers.
6.3. Frozen escrow accounts and unavailability of funds for construction
6.3.1. Although regulatory frameworks envision project-wise escrow accounts and ring-fenced cash flows, escrow and current accounts are often frozen or rendered inoperative upon commencement of CIRP, even where sufficient funds are available for construction. There is no uniform or enforceable standard operating procedure across States governing the operation of project escrow accounts during insolvency.
6.3.2. Diversion of homebuyer funds across projects remains a persistent concern, with limited mechanisms to recover misapplied and diverted funds. While RERA mandates that project funds be used exclusively for the registered project, enforcement gaps persist in practice. As a result, construction activity is frequently halted despite the availability of funds, directly undermining statutory ring-fencing requirements and leaving homebuyers without access to funds already committed for project completion.
6.4. Absence of standard operating procedures with development authorities
6.4.1. There is no standardised framework governing the conduct of development authorities once a real estate project is admitted into CIRP. Authority responses vary widely, ranging from cooperative restructuring of dues to insistence on immediate payment of principal, penalties, and interest, or initiation of lease cancellation proceedings.
6.4.2. Even after approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, authorities have, in several cases, refused revalidation of approvals or raised fresh objections outside the CIRP record, forcing stakeholders into further litigation. This unpredictability introduces significant structural risk for the successful Resolution Applicants (SRA), as development rights and title remain unstable even after judicial approval of a resolution plan.
6.5. Expiry of regulatory approvals during CIRP and absence of fast-track revalidation
6.5.1. Regulatory approvals under RERA and local development laws are subject to finite validity periods. Due to prolonged CIRP timelines, such approvals often lapse before a resolution plan is approved. Regulatory authorities have noted that, in many cases, approvals expire solely because of delays inherent in the insolvency process.
6.5.2. Revalidation of approvals thereafter depends on administrative discretion and capacity, which may not align with timelines committed under the resolution plan. In the absence of fast-track revalidation mechanisms, otherwise viable projects remain stalled at the resolution plan implementation stage, creating a critical bottleneck in project revival.
6.6. Unilateral powers exercised by land-owning authorities
6.6.1. Land-owning authorities are not integrated into the commercial decision-making framework of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) but retain significant unilateral powers, including lease termination and escalation of penalties. These powers operate outside the CIRP framework and are frequently exercised post-approval of resolution plans.
6.6.2. In the absence of clear regulated participation, authority involvement remains largely observational during CIRP, while substantive administrative action may later negate approved resolutions, leading to increased litigation and systemic uncertainty.
6.7. Belated claims and post-approval litigation
6.7.1. Real estate insolvency cases involve large and geographically dispersed homebuyer populations, resulting in a substantial volume of belated claims. In several cases, belated claims constitute a significant proportion of the final creditor list.
6.7.2. Belated claimants frequently resist refund-based treatment due to appreciation in property values, triggering prolonged litigation and delaying implementation of approved plans. Continuous inflow of claims destabilises negotiations, inflates liabilities, and undermines the certainty required for the RAs.
6.7.3. Additionally, aggregation of the FCs’ claims across multiple projects distorts voting shares within the CoC, diluting homebuyer representation and skewing decision-making.
6.8. Passive functioning of authorised representatives
6.8.1. Authorised representatives (ARs) often function as passive intermediaries, limiting their role to the circulation of documents without structured engagement or guidance to homebuyers. Resolution plans are placed for voting without adequate consultation, leaving allottees insufficiently informed about long-term implications.
6.8.2. As a result, plans containing onerous or one-sided clauses are approved without meaningful deliberation. Post-approval, disputes frequently arise when homebuyers become aware of costs or conditions not clearly understood at the voting stage. There are inadequate codified standards governing AR independence, communication duties, or minimum engagement requirements.
6.9. Post-approval execution failures and lack of effective monitoring
6.9.1. Significant gaps persist between a resolution plan approval and on-ground execution. In several cases, construction remains stalled for years after approval, while successful resolution applicants (SRAs) may impose administrative charges not transparently disclosed in the plan.
6.9.2. Monitoring committees often become ineffective or cease functioning once management control shifts. Homebuyers face substantial difficulty in securing timely judicial intervention for post-approval grievances. There is a need for a more robust mechanism to oversee RA conduct after plan approval or to address non-performance.
6.10. Prolonged NCLT approval timelines and lack of specialised benches
6.10.1. Delays between the CoC approval of a resolution plan and its approval by the NCLT materially impair project viability. Frequent transfers between benches, repeated adjournments and hearings, and procedural inefficiencies prolong uncertainty. During this period, CIRP costs continue to accrue, eroding funds available for construction.
6.10.2. The absence of specialised benches with sector-specific expertise further compounds the problem, as adjudication may not adequately account for the technical and financial realities of a real estate project completion.
6.11. Low participation by resolution applicants
Participation by credible prospective RAs remains limited, with most processes attracting only a small number of bidders. Incomplete information, uncertainty regarding authority conduct, unclear treatment of legacy dues, and limited unsold inventory inhibits reliable financial modelling. Limited competition reduces bargaining power for creditors and homebuyers, resulting in acceptance of sub-optimal plans due to the absence of viable alternatives.
6.12. Reverse CIRP
Reverse CIRP has evolved through judicial practice but lacks statutory recognition under the IBC. Its application raises concerns regarding inconsistency with Section 29A, as defaulting promoters are permitted to retain operational control.
6.13. Uncertainty regarding immunity from past tax and regulatory liabilities
The scope of immunity from pre-CIRP tax and regulatory liabilities remains unclear despite approval of resolution plans and the clean slate principle provided under the Code. Authorities have, in several cases, reopened historical demands post-approval, exposing resolution applicants to unforeseen liabilities. This uncertainty increases funding costs, discourages bidder participation, and necessitates further litigation to establish principles that are expected to flow automatically from plan approval.
6.14. Challenges in post-resolution monitoring by RERA
While RERA is designed for project-level oversight and IBC focuses on time-bound restructuring, the transition between the two frameworks remains unstructured. Post-approval monitoring mechanisms are weak, leaving a regulatory vacuum during the implementation phase of a resolution plan. The RERAs are not systematically mandated to monitor resolution plan execution, despite their institutional capacity and access to project-level data. This gap leaves homebuyers without effective recourse during the critical post-resolution period.
6.15. Absence of a unified group insolvency framework for SPV-based structures
Real estate groups typically operate through multiple SPVs, resulting in fragmented insolvency outcomes across projects. Assets and financing are often held at the group level, while liabilities are ring-fenced at the SPV level, obstructing coherent resolution. Viable projects are frequently dragged into insolvency due to group-level defaults, while cross-subsidisation of cash flows distorts project-specific outcomes. Absence of a group insolvency framework prevents isolation of solvent projects and undermines efficient resolution across interconnected real estate portfolios.
Key recommendations of the Committee
7. The Committee’s analysis of the identified 55 critical issues and related remedial recommendations proceed from the premise that value in real estate is realised through completion or resolution, not liquidation. Insolvency law, therefore, must operate as a facilitative framework for project revival rather than a blunt instrument of debt enforcement. The recommended framework, therefore, balances economic substance with legal form. While the Committee has given 155 specific Recommendations, some of the key recommendations are set out, as follows.
7.1. Project-wise insolvency admission: The Committee recommends that CIRP in the real estate sector should ordinarily be admitted on a project-wise basis, with each real estate project treated as an independent unit for the purposes of insolvency admission and resolution.
7.1.1. Admission of CIRP may be confined to the defaulting project, and solvent, completed or unrelated projects of the same developer may not be included.
7.1.2. Given the peculiar challenges in the insolvency resolution of real estate cases, as highlighted by this Committee, the MCA and IBBI may consider enabling project-wise admission of CIRP of real estate cases. The Department of Financial Services (DFS) and RERA may consider facilitating project-wise admission by laying down project-wise frameworks such as project-wise lending, maintenance of CDs’ accounts project-wise, and project-wise monitoring.
7.1.3. Entity-level (the Corporate Debtor) CIRP encompassing multiple projects may be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, including:
i. substantial inter-linkages or commingling of funds across projects;
ii. cross-collateralisation of assets or guarantees; or
iii. demonstrable fraud or mismanagement affecting multiple projects.
7.1.4. Where entity-level admission is ordered, the AA may record specific reasons in writing justifying deviation from the project-wise admission approach.
7.2. Procedural consolidation of land and development rights: Where the land and development rights are split across different group entities:
7.2.1. The AA may exercise powers to order procedural consolidation of the assets required for the project’s completion, treating the land-holding entity and the development entity as a single economic unit for the limited purpose of a resolution plan.
7.2.2. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) may be issued to guide landowners and development authorities to resist unilaterally terminating JDAs or leases solely on the ground of CIRP initiation, provided that the current dues of these authorities are addressed in the resolution plan.
7.3. Mandatory independent technical and cost assessment: The Committee recommends that immediately upon admission, the IRP/ RP should appoint a reputable, independent technical agency (e.g., engineers, quantity surveyors). This agency should conduct a comprehensive audit to determine the physical progress of construction (tower-wise/unit-wise), detailed Cost-to-Complete estimates based on current market rates, status of all statutory approvals (fire, environment, height clearance) and their remaining validity and inventory of materials on site. This Technical Assessment Report must be an integral part of the IM provided to prospective resolution applicants (PRAs).
7.4. Mandatory operation of project-wise Escrow Accounts: The IBBI may specify that escrow accounts linked to the real estate projects under CIRP should not be frozen by RERA just because the CD has been admitted under CIRP. They must remain operational to receive homebuyer receivables and funds for construction.
7.4.1. The RP must operate these accounts in strict compliance with the Section 4(2)(l)(D) of the RERA. Withdrawals must be permitted only for construction and land costs of that specific project, certified by a Chartered Accountant and an Engineer.
7.4.2. In a multi-project CD, the RP must open and maintain separate bank accounts for each project. Cross-utilisation of funds between projects during the CIRP should be strictly prohibited, unless explicitly approved by the CoC of the contributing project.
7.5. Formulation of SOPs: The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), in coordination with State Governments, may notify unified SOPs for Development Authorities dealing with IBC cases:
7.5.1. Dues restructuring: The SOP may prescribe a standard formula for recalculating land dues in insolvency (e.g., waiving penal interest and time extension charges), accepting the principal amount and simple interest as a sustainable resolution payment.
7.5.2. Moratorium compliance: Appropriate advisories that lease cancellation proceedings cannot be initiated or continued during the moratorium period.
7.5.3. Binding nature: A clarification that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the AA, it is binding on the Development Authority as a statutory creditor. The Development Authority may process approvals (OC/CC/Sub-lease deeds) based on the terms of the approved plan without raising legacy demands.
7.6. Automatic extension and fast-track revalidation
7.6.1. The Committee recommends that MoHUA may amend the legislative framework of RERAs to exclude the duration of the CIRP from the calculation of the validity period of licenses and approvals. Upon approval of a resolution plan, all necessary approvals should be deemed valid or eligible for automatic revalidation for the duration of the construction timeline specified in the plan.
7.6.2. A dedicated “Insolvency Clearance Window” should be established within local bodies to process technical revalidations (structural safety checks, fire norms) within a stipulated timeline (e.g., 30 days) to allow immediate resumption of work.
7.7. Regulatory participation in the CoC and Monitoring Committee:
7.7.1. Land Authorities should be accorded the status of special invitees to the CoC meetings where land-related issues are discussed. Similarly, they must be included as members of the monitoring committee for implementation of the resolution plan.
7.7.2. Land development authorities are accorded the treatment of secured operational creditors under Section 53 of the Code (as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court), thereby entitling them to a higher priority in the distribution of the proceeds ranking above other stakeholders such as unsecured FCs and the Central/ State Government. These authorities are, by and large, treated on the same footing as secured FCs i.e. Banks, financial institutions, etc. Therefore, ideally, land authorities should not attempt to seek recovery of their dues in full, including through litigation that would override or alter the statutory scheme of distribution provided under the Code and would be contrary to the binding and final nature of an approved resolution plan.
7.7.3. The IBBI should reiterate to the land development authorities that the termination of land leases/ development agreements by public authorities is prohibited during the CIRP, provided the RP is compliant with current compliance norms (safety, security). The resolution plan must mandatorily propose a settlement for land dues. If the CoC approves a plan with a haircut on land dues, and the NCLT confirms it, the concerned Authority must be legally barred from terminating the lease based on these settled past dues.
7.8. List of homebuyers based on available records: The names of all homebuyers should be automatically included in the list of creditors and disclosed in the IM based on the CD’s books of accounts, RERA records or IU (NeSL) records where available. The RP should actively verify and populate the list of creditors from these records. In case of information gaps in CD’s records, the RP should also access RERA records. Furthermore, RERAs may strengthen the existing monitoring mechanisms to ensure that developers are filing and updating the details of allottees for all projects, including those entering insolvency.
7.9. Strengthening Authorised Representative (AR) accountability and engagement
7.9.1. To enable creditors in a class to make an informed choice at the public announcement stage, the IRP/ RP should provide access to a brief profile of the proposed AR, along with a brief note on the role and duties of an AR.
7.9.2. Regulations must mandate that ARs hold structured consultations (town hall, webinars) with homebuyers before every critical vote, specifically to explain the Resolution Plan’s terms, risks, financial and other implications. The AR must circulate summaries of complex legal documents, highlighting key deviations from the original Builder-Buyer Agreement, if any.
7.9.3. The AR may be mandated to submit the record of discussions of meetings held with creditors in the class, to the RP for inclusion in the minutes of the CoC meeting.
7.10. Robust monitoring and RERA integration
7.10.1. The resolution plan must mandatorily constitute a Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) comprising representatives of homebuyers, lenders, land authorities, concerned RERA, sector specialists and the SRA.
7.10.2. Upon plan approval, the project’s new timeline and specifications must be registered with RERA.
7.10.3. The terms of “plan implementation” must be defined not just by financial settlement but by physical construction milestones.
7.11. Specialised NCLT benches: The NCLT may establish Specialised Real Estate Benches in key jurisdictions (Delhi, Mumbai), staffed by Members with expertise in infrastructure and project finance.
7.12. Improving market participation: The IM must be a ‘Red Herring Prospectus’ quality document with enhanced disclosures, such as details of completion status of units, sale status, possession or refund status of units in the project. Further, the regulations should actively encourage homebuyer-led resolution plans. Eligibility criteria should be relaxed for Associations of Allottees bidding for their own projects. Public Sector Undertakings (NBCC, HUDCO) should be encouraged to act as “Project Management Consultants” or RAs to provide an experienced hand for implementing the real estate resolution plan. The SWAMIH Fund and other last-mile financing windows should be integrated into the resolution process to support credible bidders.
7.13. Phasing-out Reverse CIRP in Favour of Code-compliant models: The Committee does not recommend “Reverse CIRP” at all, though the same has been practiced in a few cases, under judicial orders. Instead, the Code may allow for project-wise admission of CIRP or as per the framework recommended by this Committee, focus should be on project-wise resolution, where the management is transferred to a professional RP and then to an appropriate RA, ensuring Section 29A compliance.
7.14. Strict enforcement of “clean slate” principle: The regulations should explicitly state that the “clean slate” protection extends to all real estate-specific liabilities, including property taxes, external development charges (EDC), and regulatory penalties accrued prior to the plan approval. There should be a waiver of all penal interest and fines upon approval of the resolution plan. Municipalities and Development Authorities may refrain from withholding future approvals (OC/CC) on the grounds of pre-CIRP arrears that were settled under an approved resolution plan.
7.15. Enhancing data integrity via Information Utility: Information Utility (IU) should be mandated to store real estate project data, including homebuyer allotments and payment history, in coordination with RERAs and banks, respectively. This data should be an important source for claim verification by the RP. Furthermore, the IU should facilitate the electronic filing of claim forms by homebuyers through its portal. The IU should also share information regarding default by a real estate project and its subsequent admission into CIRP, if that happens, with the concerned homebuyers.
7.16. Institutionalising the RERA handover
7.16.1. The regulations should formalise a mechanism where, upon plan approval, the project’s monitoring transits the concerned RERA. The resolution plan’s timelines and deliverables should be registered with RERA.
7.16.2. RERA may enforce its penal powers to ensure that the timelines committed in the resolution plan are adhered to by the SRA, thereby ensuring that the SRA remains accountable to the homebuyers.
7.17. Procedural consolidation: The AA should exercise its inherent powers to order procedural consolidation of the CIRPs for interdependent SPVs within the same real estate group. This allows for a common CoC meeting schedule and coordinated decision-making without merging assets.
7.18. Conclusion
The Committee’s central conclusion is that real estate insolvency requires a decisive shift from an entity-centric, recovery-oriented paradigm to a project-centric, completion-driven framework. The recommendations seek to harmonise insolvency law with real estate regulation, judicial guidance, and constitutional values, ensuring that the Code functions as an instrument of resolution rather than prolonged uncertainty. The ultimate measure of success, as the Committee emphasises, lies not in procedural metrics but in the delivery of homes, restoration of trust, and revival of stalled economic value.
