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.

Hon'ble High Courts shall entertain the Writ petitions and exercise their discretionary powers as provided in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only in exceptional circumstances

Hon'ble High Courts shall entertain the Writ petitions and exercise their discretionary powers as provided in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only in exceptional circumstances, where either the Adjudicating Authority acted without jurisdiction or there was violation of the principles of Natural Justice.

 In the case of Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1 

wherein, the Supreme Court laid down the triple test for entertaining a writ petition despite availability of the remedy of an appeal in contractual matters i.e., 

firstly if the action of the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction, 

secondly if the principles of natural justice have been violated and 

thirdly if the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated.

In the case of Barik Biswas vs Union of India & Ors., Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also dismissed the writ petition and held that 

"the action of coming to this Court is premature and therefore, this Court is of the view that since the petitioners have effective and efficacious remedy under PMLA, necessitating institution of the petition by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not appropriate at this stage. If this Court were to enter into the merits of this case at this stage, it would amount to scuttling the statutorily engrafted mechanism i.e. PMLA."

However, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of A.Kamarunnisa Ghori and Others , accepted the Writ Petition on a limited point, where the Enforcement Directorate and Adjudicating Authority interpreted the law in a way different from the view point of the Hon'ble Court. Against the argument of presence of alternate remedy, the Hon'ble Court held that "in view of the fact that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is ultimately subject to an appeal to this Court under Section 42 of the Act. By the time the petitioners go before the Appellate Authority and thereafter come up before this Court under Section 42, the petitioners would have long lost possession of their properties" and hence prejudiced.

Madras High Court : the election dispute raised by the Petitioner in terms of by-laws can be adjudicated only through public fora (Courts) & not through Arbitration, which is confidential in nature.

 Madras Sporting Youngsters Football Club vs. Tamil Nadu Football Association and Ors. (Madras High Court, decided on 31.01.2022), 

was a Petition under Section 11 of the #arbitration & conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of and #arbitrator, where this question was raised.

Here Madras Sporting Youngsters Football Club (MSYFC) was challenging the appointment of the 4th Respondent (R4), as the secretary of the TN Football Association, and was relying on the arbitration clause contained in the by-laws of the TN Football Association.

The court observed as follows:

1. The dispute raised by MSYFC is an election dispute TN Football Association, in which R4 was elected as Secretary. R4 is not a member of the TN Football association as only Football clubs can be its members.

2. Therefore R4 is not a party to the by-laws of the TN Football association, which contain the arbitration clause. He has neither signed the by-laws nor agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. 

3. By-laws of a society are internal regulations of the said society applicable only to its members, and is a public document. It is not a person-centric or private documents. 

4. Therefore, several parties may be interested in the by-laws such as players, stage, members, etc. In view of the same, the election dispute raised by the Petitioner in terms of by-laws can be adjudicated only through public fora (Courts) & not through Arbitration, which is confidential in nature. 

5. Matters such as actions for enforcement of in-rem rights can only be adjudicated by public fora, and stand excluded from purview of private fora by necessary implication such disputes are incapable of being resolved in arbitration. (Reliance placed on Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. V. SBI Home Finance Ltd., 2011 5 SCC 532)

6. If the subject matter of a dispute affects third party rights, it is not arbitrable. (Reliance placed on Vidya Drolia V. Durga Trading Corporation 2021 (2) SCC 1)

7. Disputes involving public interest or interests of numbers persons not parties before Court and disputes relating to election to public offices are non-arbitrable. (Reliance placed on Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. V. Cherian Varkey 2010 (8) SCC 24)

In view of the above observations, the Court dismissed the Petition under Section 11 for appointment of arbitrator. 

Madras High Court : The private rights of an individual to acquire title by adverse possession cannot be upheld when the same is put up against the public rights of the beneficial owners

 Thankappan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu S.A.(MD)No.252 of 2005 JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 10.02.2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

The occupier can plead and prove title by adverse possession only as long as the Government property remains as a Government Poramboke, not being reserved for any public purposes. Only in those cases,the occupier can invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act and claim title by adverse possession. In all other cases, where the properties are being classified and reserved for public purposes, since he cannot have anyanimus as against all the beneficial owners, the occupier cannot acquire title by adverse possession.The private rights of an individual to acquire title by adverse possession cannot be upheld when the same is put up against the public rights of the beneficial owners. Hence, no occupier can acquire title by adverse possession over a water body or any other land reserved for public purposes despite being in possession beyond the statutory period of 30 years

When an objection has been taken by the other party that a document is insufficiently stamped, then, it is incumbent on part of Court to decide objection first and then to proceed further

 In M.Chinnappan V. M.Ranganathan and another, AIR 2005 Madras 105, it is held that 

'when an objection has been taken by the other party that a document is insufficiently stamped, then, it is incumbent on part of Court to decide objection first and then to proceed further

The project completion means that it must be completed in all respects and the entire project was handed over to the respective buyers

 In the Matter of M/S.Sare Shelters Project Pvt. ... vs Sare Squires C.M.S.A.No.27 of 2020 decided on 16.02.2021 before THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, the High court held that “The project completion means that it must be completed in all respects and the entire project was handed over to the respective buyers and all the original documents are handed over to the apartment owners association. Therefore, the builder cannot enter thereafter into the project premises as they lost their legal rights except with the permission of the owners or with reference to the agreement, if any, between the parties.

In the Matter of Subashini Thulasiram vs M/S.Spr & Rg Constructions C.M.S.A.No.22 of 2019 decided on 15 September, 2020 before THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS it was held by the high court that  “The application for completion certificate without environmental clearance certificate is a defective application and in the eye of law, it cannot be called as an application for completion certificate…… The State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority cannot issue post facto environmental clearance certificate”,

In the absence of completely formulated contract, earnest money is refundable.

In the Matter of  Commr of HR & CE Deptt v. S. Muthekrishnan AIR 2012 Mad 43, The Madras High Court observed that if the contract is not completely formulated between the parties but the earnest money is paid, the other party is not entitled to forfeit the amount and it stands refundable.