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.
