RERA cannot decide disputed questions of title; parties must approach civil court: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) cannot adjudicate disputed questions concerning title to land while examining applications for the registration of a real estate project [Balakrishnan Vs TNRERA].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, clarified that TNRERA may reject registration where it is apparent on the face of the record that the promoter does not have title or where the nature of an encumbrance prevents registration.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by N Balakrishnan, who claimed ownership over some property in Tambaram and challenged the registration granted by TNRERA for a project proposed by one S Anandhan over the said property.

Balakrishnan claimed that the property had originally been purchased by his father and was later inherited by him. Anandhan, meanwhile, filed a civil suit seeking to restrain Balakrishnan from interfering with the property and secured an interim injunction.

While the civil dispute was pending, Anandhan applied to the TNRERA for the registration of a project on the property.

Balakrishnan said that he had submitted a detailed objection to TNRERA in September 2025. He was initially informed under the Right to Information Act that no registration had been granted, but later discovered that TNRERA had registered the project on April 10, 2026.

He further alleged that construction had begun and plots were being advertised for sale.

Balakrishnan, therefore, argued that the registration had been granted without considering material facts. He relied on Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, to contend that the promoter was required to disclose encumbrances and disputes affecting the property.

It was in this context that the High Court considered the extent of TNRERA's powers when competing claims to ownership are raised.

The Court noted that Section 4(2)(l) of the RERA Act requires a promoter to make declarations concerning legal title and encumbrances over the project land.

It held that TNRERA may refuse registration where, on the face of the material before it, the promoter does not have title or where an encumbrance is such that registration cannot be granted.

However, the authority cannot itself decide disputed questions of title.

“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," the Court said.

The Court went on to note that a civil court had already found a prima facie case in Anandhan's favour and that an injunction continued to operate against Balakrishnan. Therefore, the High Court held that this was not a case where TNRERA was required to reject the project registration.

The Court further clarified that registration under RERA does not determine ownership rights.

“Mere grant of registration by the TNRERA will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner in canvassing its plea before the Civil Court," it said.

Balakrishnan was left free to raise his claims regarding title and construction before the civil court, the Court added.

The Court also noted that the project had already been registered and construction was at an advanced stage.

The writ petition was consequently closed, with liberty to Balakrishnan to approach the civil court with his grievances.

Senior Advocate G Rajagopalan, instructed by GR Associates, appeared for Balakrishnan.

Advocate Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran represented TNRERA.

Senior Advocate TV Ramanujam, instructed by Advocate R Ramya, appeared for Anandhan.

[Read Judgment]