TNRERA Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Questions of Title; Parties Must Approach Competent Civil Court: Madras High Court
Case Title: N. Balakrishnan v. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case No.: W.P. No. 32211 of 2026
Connected Applications: W.M.P. Nos. 35399 and 35401 of 2026
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
The Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputed questions of title and that parties claiming competing rights over immovable property must approach the competent Civil Court for determination of such disputes.
The Court was considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by TNRERA concerning registration of a real estate project.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that although TNRERA is required to examine whether the promoter has the requisite legal title to the land at the stage of project registration, it cannot undertake a detailed adjudication of a genuinely disputed question of title. The Court held:
“However, it must be seen that 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.”
Factual Background
The petitioner claimed ownership over property situated in Thiruneermalai Village, asserting that the property had been purchased by his father. He also relied upon electricity, gas and telephone connections standing in respect of the property.
Meanwhile, the second respondent instituted a civil suit against the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the property. An interim injunction was also granted in favour of the second respondent.
According to the petitioner, although he had filed a counter in the civil proceedings, the matter remained pending for more than three years. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent had taken advantage of the ex parte interim injunction and applied to TNRERA for registration of a project proposed to be developed on the disputed property.
The petitioner consequently submitted an objection before the Chairperson of TNRERA, opposing registration of the project.
The petitioner had earlier sought information under the Right to Information Act, pursuant to which he was informed that no registration had been granted. However, he subsequently came to know that the project had been registered in favour of the second respondent.
Contentions of the Parties
The second respondent opposed the writ petition, asserting that he was the owner of the property and intended to develop it after obtaining the necessary permissions. It was submitted that the project had been duly registered with TNRERA in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The second respondent contended that TNRERA could not be called upon to adjudicate the title dispute raised by the petitioner.
Court's Reasoning
The High Court considered the requirements prescribed under Section 4(2)(l) of RERA, under which the promoter is required to make declarations regarding, inter alia, the promoter's legal title to the land and the absence of encumbrances.
The Court explained that TNRERA does have a statutory obligation to examine the promoter's declaration concerning title and encumbrances while considering an application for registration.
However, this regulatory scrutiny does not confer upon TNRERA the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate a contested question of ownership or title.
The Court observed that where, on the face of the record, the project proponent does not appear to possess legal title, or where the nature of an encumbrance is such that registration ought not to be granted, TNRERA may, depending upon the facts, refuse registration.
However, where the competing claims involve disputed questions of title requiring adjudication, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.
The Court held:
“With the said mandatory requirement in existence, if, prima facie, 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 encumbrance is such that the registration cannot be granted, it may, in a given fact situation, reject the registration also.”
At the same time, the Court clarified:
“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.”
Effect of Existing Civil Court Proceedings
An important factor considered by the High Court was that the dispute between the parties was already pending before the Civil Court and that an interim injunction had been granted in favour of the second respondent.
In those circumstances, the Court held that the matter did not warrant interference with the project registration merely because the petitioner asserted a competing claim to ownership.
The Court observed that mere registration of the project by TNRERA would not prejudice the petitioner's rights before the Civil Court. The petitioner remained entitled to pursue his claim of title and could even raise appropriate counter-claims or institute separate civil proceedings against the second respondent.
The Court stated:
“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 counter-claim or filing even a suit as against the second respondent.”
Petitioner's Remedy Lies Before Civil Court
The High Court noted that in the earlier proceedings also, the petitioner had been relegated to the Civil Court for determination of his rights.
Accordingly, the Court left it open to the petitioner to raise the issue in the pending civil suit, including by filing an appropriate counter-petition, or to initiate separate civil proceedings concerning the property and the construction/project.
The Court further observed that, considering that the project had already been registered and that construction was at an advanced stage, it may not be appropriate for TNRERA to revoke the registration and reopen the title issue.
Decision
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, while preserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue his remedies before the competent Civil Court.
Key Takeaway
The decision draws an important distinction between regulatory scrutiny of title at the stage of project registration and judicial adjudication of a disputed title.
TNRERA is required to examine the promoter's statutory declarations concerning legal title and encumbrances under RERA. Where the promoter's lack of title is apparent on the face of the record, the Authority may take appropriate action, including refusal of registration.
However, where ownership itself is seriously disputed and requires evidence and adjudication, TNRERA cannot assume the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and conclusively determine the competing title claims. Such disputes must be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.
The judgment also clarifies that registration of a project under RERA does not by itself confer or conclusively establish title over the underlying property, nor does it prevent a person claiming ownership from pursuing appropriate civil remedies.
