RERA Cannot Demand 25-Year-Old Cooperative Society Records for Project Registration: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal v. Shri Ji Builders and Developers
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 2857 of 2024
Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:42665

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MP-RERA) cannot reject a project registration application merely because the promoter failed to produce internal records of a cooperative society relating to a transaction carried out nearly 25 years ago, particularly when registered title documents and revenue records are available.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed the appeal filed by MP-RERA and upheld the earlier order directing the Authority to process the registration application submitted by Shri Ji Builders and Developers for its proposed “Krishna Orchid” project in Bhopal.

Dispute Over Registration of Krishna Orchid Project

The dispute arose after Shri Ji Builders and Developers applied for registration of its proposed project situated at Village Khajuri Kalan, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal.

MP-RERA rejected the application on June 9, 2023, citing several deficiencies. Among the objections were the non-submission of a diverted Khasra certificate and questions concerning the title arising from a 1999 sale transaction executed by a cooperative society.

The Authority also sought the original resolution register of the cooperative society to establish that the transaction had been duly authorised, besides raising an objection regarding the filing of income-tax returns.

The developer challenged the rejection before the High Court.

High Court Says RERA Cannot Adjudicate Title Disputes

The Single Judge, by an order dated September 23, 2024, directed MP-RERA to proceed with the registration process after carrying out prima facie verification of title on the basis of registered sale deeds and relevant revenue records.

MP-RERA challenged that order before the Division Bench.

The High Court held that the RERA Authority performs a regulatory and facilitative function and cannot assume the role of a civil court by conclusively adjudicating disputed questions relating to title.

The Bench observed that allowing the Authority to undertake such an exercise would effectively transform it from a regulatory body into a civil court, which was not contemplated under the RERA framework.

25-Year-Old Records Cannot Be Treated as an Impossible Requirement

The Court particularly considered the transaction dating back to December 29, 1999.

It noted that the sale deeds had been registered, mutation had subsequently been carried out in February 2000, and possession had continued uninterrupted for more than two decades.

Against this background, the Court found it unreasonable to insist upon the cooperative society's internal records from 1999 to establish the validity of a transaction that was already supported by registered documents and revenue records.

The Bench observed:

“To demand historical internal records of a cooperative from 1999, twenty-five years post-facto, is to impose an impossible burden of proof.”

Procedural Deficiencies Could Be Cured

The High Court also treated the non-submission of the diverted Khasra certificate and income-tax returns as curable procedural deficiencies, rather than grounds for rejecting the entire registration application.

The Court noted that the diversion proceedings had substantially progressed and that the requirement relating to income-tax returns was intended primarily to ensure transparency and disclosure.

It held that such deficiencies could be addressed without preventing registration of an otherwise eligible project.

Appeal by MP-RERA Dismissed

The Court also considered MP-RERA's objection that the developer should have first pursued the statutory remedy before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

The Bench noted the practical unavailability of the appellate forum at the relevant time because of vacancies in key positions. It therefore declined to interfere with the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the Single Judge.

Ultimately, the Division Bench found no illegality or perversity in the Single Judge's order and dismissed MP-RERA's appeal.

The Authority was directed to proceed with the registration of the Krishna Orchid project after verification of title through the available registered documents and revenue records, subject to compliance with the remaining requirements.

Key Takeaway

The judgment underscores the limits of RERA's regulatory powers in matters involving disputed title. While the Authority is required to scrutinise statutory compliance and protect the interests of real-estate stakeholders, it cannot substitute itself for a civil court to adjudicate complex or historical title disputes.

The ruling also makes clear that curable procedural deficiencies should not, by themselves, result in rejection of a project registration application, particularly where substantive title documents and revenue records are available.

 

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.

The Authority has Jurisdiction to decide the matters between the Allottee and promoter , though their agreement has an arbitration clause in it.

In the Matter of Sarita Bhairu Chandekar & oth Vs Prashant Bhandari Complaint number CC005000000022925 decided on 11.11.2019  before  Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

The Authority Relied on the Judgment by Supreme Court in the matter of HDFC Bank Ltd-v/s-Satpal Singh Baxi (MANU/DE/5308/2012) in which the Supreme Court also held that if particular enactment creates special rights and obligations and gives special power to the Tribunal which are not in Civil Court such as tribunal constituted under Rent Control Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute arising under the said enactments cannot be arbitral otherwise other disputes are arbitral.

In Hemangi Enterprise-v/ s-Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia 2017 STPL 13227 SC, the Supreme Court found that the dispute between the parties was that of the tenant and landlord relating to leave and license agreement and therefore exciusive jurisdiction to deal with such dispute is conferred upon the Court of Small Causes and therefore, though there wasthe Arbitral Clause in the agreement, the Court held that the dispute was not arbitral. 

As per the Court

• Section 20 of RERA has special powers

• under Section 31 of it to adjudicate the dispute between the aggrieved person on one hand and the promoter, allottee, real estate agent on the other for violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA, Rules and Regulations made thereunder.

• Section 32,34,35 are the special provisions.

• Section 79 of RERA bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court from entertaining any matter which the Authority is empowered under the Act to determine.

• Section 59 lo 69 relates to the offences and penalties.

• A Special Forum of Adjudicating Officers whose qualification is that of District Judge has been set up by Section 71 of RERA to decide the matters arising out of Section 1.2, 74, 78 & 19.This case arises out of Section 18 of the Act for which a separate special forum has been provided by RERA and hence, the jurisdiction lies with the Authority and it cannot be delegated to the Arbitrator despite the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Arbitration Clause of the agreement. Hence, Court did not find any force in the respondents' submission that this Authority has no jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Authority has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

x

Whether the Commission or Forum under the CP Act is a civil court or not?

 in Malay Kumar Ganguli v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221 ,  it was held that,

“The proceedings before the National Commission are although judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be called a civil court.”