Madras High Court: RERA’s Limitations in Adjudicating Title Disputes
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has clarified the scope of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) in handling disputes concerning property titles. The court has determined that TNRERA does not have the jurisdiction to resolve intricate questions of title when reviewing applications for real estate project registrations. This decision came in light of the case Balakrishnan Vs TNRERA.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, who presided over the matter, stated that while TNRERA can refuse to register a project if it is clear that the promoter lacks a valid title or if there is a significant encumbrance, it cannot delve into disputed title questions. The judgment highlighted that such matters should be resolved in civil courts.
The Case of Disputed Ownership
The ruling was made following a petition by N Balakrishnan, who contested the TNRERA’s decision to register a project proposed by S Anandhan on property that Balakrishnan claims to own. Balakrishnan argued that this property was initially acquired by his father and then inherited by him. Conversely, Anandhan had initiated a civil suit to prevent Balakrishnan from interfering with the property and had obtained an interim injunction in his favor.
Despite the ongoing civil litigation, Anandhan proceeded to apply for project registration with TNRERA. Balakrishnan, who had raised objections in September 2025, was initially informed that no registration had been granted. However, he later discovered that the registration had been approved on April 10, 2026. He further alleged that construction activities had commenced and plots were being marketed for sale.
Legal Framework and Court’s Analysis
Balakrishnan’s argument was based on Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates promoters to disclose any encumbrances or disputes affecting the property. The High Court examined TNRERA’s remit under Section 4(2)(l) of the RERA Act, which requires promoters to declare legal title and encumbrances on the project land.
More Read
The Court concluded that while TNRERA can reject registration if a lack of title or severe encumbrance is evident, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title. Justice Chakravarthy emphasized, “When there are disputed questions of title, it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself. It is for the persons to approach the competent Civil Court.”
Outcome and Implications
The Court observed that a civil court had already found a prima facie case favoring Anandhan, with an injunction against Balakrishnan still in effect. Consequently, the High Court stated that this situation did not necessitate TNRERA to deny project registration.
The ruling clarified that TNRERA’s registration does not resolve ownership rights, allowing Balakrishnan to continue pursuing his title claims in civil court. The Court noted that the project registration had been completed and construction was significantly underway. As a result, the writ petition was closed, preserving Balakrishnan’s right to seek relief from the civil courts.
More Read
Representing Balakrishnan was Senior Advocate G Rajagopalan, assisted by GR Associates. Advocate Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran appeared for TNRERA, while Senior Advocate TV Ramanujam, instructed by Advocate R Ramya, represented Anandhan.
