Back
Dismisses Challenge, Says Civil Court Must Decide Title Disputes, Not RERA
The has firmly ruled that the does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate , reiterating that such matters must be resolved by civil courts. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a writ petition challenging a project registration granted by the , while preserving the petitioner’s right to pursue his claims before a civil forum.
The Dispute Over Property and Registration
The case involved N. Balakrishnan, who claimed ownership of a property in Thiruneermalai village, Tambaram taluk, inherited from his father. He alleged that the second respondent, S. Anandhan, had obtained an against him in a civil suit (O.S. No. 1117 of 2023) and subsequently secured registration for a real estate project on the same property without disclosing the pending litigation. Balakrishnan had submitted a detailed objection to TNRERA, but the authority claimed it had misplaced the letter. Despite this, TNRERA proceeded to grant registration on .
Balakrishnan argued that the registration should be cancelled because the promoter failed to disclose the pending suit, which he termed an “” under . He contended that the authority ought to have considered his objection before granting registration.
TNRERA’s Limited Role in Title Matters
The court examined the scope of RERA’s powers, particularly in light of , which requires promoters to declare that the land is free from encumbrances. While acknowledging that the authority could, in clear cases, refuse registration where a promoter’s title is patently defective, the court drew a sharp distinction. “When there are , it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself,” the judge observed. The proper forum, the court emphasised, is the civil court.
The second respondent, represented by , pointed out that Balakrishnan had already been relegated to civil court by multiple authorities, including the District Revenue Officer and the . The in the pending suit remained in force, and the petitioner had not approached the civil court to challenge the title.
“Registration Does Not Prejudice ”
Justice Chakravarthy noted that the mere grant of registration by TNRERA would not prejudice the petitioner’s right to agitate his title claims in civil proceedings. “Mere grant of registration by the TNRERA will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner in canvassing its plea before the Civil Court or making even a or filing even a suit as against the second respondent,” the court stated.
The judgment also addressed the petitioner’s concern that TNRERA had not considered his objection. The court clarified that while the authority should ideally examine objections, in this case, the presence of a and injunction made it inappropriate for RERA to revisit the registration. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, but explicitly preserved the petitioner’s liberty to approach the civil court.
Key Observations from the Bench
The court made several pivotal observations:
“It is true that as per , a declaration has to be made by the promoter with reference to the facts that he has got any legal title on the land and that the land is free from all encumbrances etc. With the said mandatory requirement in existence, if, , TNRERA is of view that the project proponent on the face of it does not qualify as somebody who is having title or that the nature of is such that the registration cannot be granted, it may, in a given fact situation, reject the registration also. However, it must be seen that when there are , it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself.”
“Repeatedly, in all the earlier proceedings, the petitioner has been relegated to the Civil Court. Therefore, it will be open for the petitioner even with reference to proceeding of the project or construction to even file counter petition in the same pending suit or file separate civil proceedings and contest the issue and it may not be open for the TNRERA to revoke the registration already granted and reconsider the issue.”
A Clear Reminder of Forum Boundaries
The judgment serves as a clear reminder that RERA is not a substitute for civil courts in title disputes. While the authority has a gatekeeping role under the —ensuring that projects meet disclosure requirements—it cannot delve into contested ownership claims. The decision aligns with the consistent view taken by other high courts that RERA must confine itself to regulatory oversight and leave substantive to civil courts.
The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
