The Madras High Court has clarified that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) lacks the authority to adjudicate disputed questions of property title. The court emphasized that such matters must be resolved through the competent civil courts, not by the real estate regulatory body.
This significant ruling came during the hearing of a writ petition that challenged a real estate project’s registration granted by TNRERA. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presiding over the case, underscored that while TNRERA can examine if a promoter has declared clear title and freedom from encumbrances, it cannot itself decide contentious title disputes.
The case involved a petitioner who claimed ownership of a property in Thiruneermalai village, Tambaram taluk, asserting that he had inherited it from his father. A civil suit concerning the property’s ownership was already pending before the District Munsif Court, Pallavaram. The petitioner alleged that the project’s promoter had obtained registration from TNRERA without disclosing this ongoing litigation.
The petitioner had submitted an objection to TNRERA regarding the project registration, claiming that his concerns were not adequately addressed and that his objection letter was later misplaced by the authority. Despite these objections, TNRERA proceeded to grant the project registration.
The court referred to Section 4(2)(l) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which requires promoters to declare legal title and disclose any encumbrances on the land. The High Court noted that TNRERA could, in instances where a promoter’s title is demonstrably defective or the land is clearly encumbered, reject a registration application. However, the bench firmly stated that when title disputes are actively contested, it is not within TNRERA’s purview to resolve them.
“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,” the High Court stated, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters.
The court further observed that a civil court had already found a prima facie case in favour of the project’s promoter and that an injunction was in effect against the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court determined that the circumstances did not warrant TNRERA rejecting the project registration. The judge clarified that the mere granting of registration by TNRERA would not impede the petitioner’s ability to pursue his title claims in the civil courts, including filing counter-claims or separate suits.
The ruling reinforces the established legal principle that while regulatory authorities like TNRERA play a crucial role in ensuring transparency and compliance within the real estate sector, they are not substitutes for civil courts when it comes to adjudicating complex ownership disputes. The authority’s role is to ensure that promoters meet the disclosure requirements of the RERA Act, not to act as a forum for resolving contested property titles.
The Chenab Times News Desk