Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority in Registration No.TNRERA/35/BLG/0126/2026, dated 10.04.2026 and quash the same.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings, dated 10.04.2026 and to quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property in S.No.314/17B in Thiruneermalai village, Tambaram taluk. The property had been purchased by the father of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner inherited the property. The petitioner has secured electricity, gas and telephone connections in the above address. While so, the second respondent herein had filed O.S.No.1117 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pallavaram seeking for a permanent injunction against this petitioner from interfering with the property. An order of interim injunction was also granted in I.A.No.4 of 2023. However, the petitioner has already filed counter and is ready for enquiry and the matter is kept pending for more than three years. Taking advantage of the said ex parte interim injunction order, the second respondent herein had applied for registration of a project of developing the said property. By a detailed letter, dated 09.09.2025, the petitioner made an objection to the Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘TNRERA’), objecting to the grant of registration to the said project. Earlier, when the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, he was informed that no such registration had been granted. However, subsequently, the petitioner came to know that by the proceedings, dated 10.04.2026, registration has been granted in favour of the second respondent.

3. To the surprise of the petitioner, the second respondent also undertook construction of plots and advertised them for sale. Therefore, the petitioner had also earlier filed W.P.No.20891 of 2026 and an interim order was also granted in favour of the petitioner on 11.05.2026. The petitioner again sent a representation to the first respondent. The first respondent, by a communication, dated 09.07.2026 requested the petitioner to file a complaint in Form No.M. The said action is arbitrary and illegal and the original registration that was granted, is liable to be cancelled.

4. When the second respondent made an application under the Right to Information Act about the objection of the petitioner, it is admitted by the first respondent authority that they have misplaced the objection. Further, they have also given a reply stating that the second respondent herein failed to bring to the notice about the pendency of the suit.

5. The Writ Petition is resisted by the second respondent by filing a counter-affidavit. According to the counter-affidavit, the Writ Petition is vexatious. The second respondent is only the owner of the property and particulars of the title to the second respondent is mentioned in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit. While so, when the petitioner raised a dispute with reference to grant of patta in favour of the second respondent, the same was rejected by the District Revenue Officer and it was observed that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court, if he disputes the title. Similarly, when the CMDA authorities were considering the permission, the petitioner again made an objection and the same was again considered and the petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Court. Even before the Commissioner of Land Administration, the petitioner submitted a petition which was also rejected and it was observed to approach the Civil Court. The second respondent, being the owner of the property, wants to develop the property and after obtaining due permission, has registered the project with the TNRERA under the Real Estate (Regulation and