The Madras High Court has ruled that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) cannot resolve contested land title issues while reviewing real estate project registration applications [Balakrishnan Vs TNRERA].<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy stated that TNRERA may reject registration where it is clear from the record that the promoter lacks title or where the nature of an encumbrance hinders registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court was hearing a case brought by N Balakrishnan, who claimed ownership of some property in Tambaram and challenged the registration given by TNRERA for a project proposed by one S Anandhan on the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Balakrishnan said that the property was first purchased by his father and inherited by him. Anandhan, meantime, launched a civil suit to prevent Balakrishnan from tampering with the property and obtained an interim injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the civil dispute was underway, Anandhan sought to the TNRERA to register a project on the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Balakrishnan stated that he submitted a comprehensive protest to TNRERA in September 2025. He was initially told under the Right to Information Act that no registration had been given, but he later discovered that TNRERA had registered the project on April 10, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He further claimed that building had commenced and plots were being advertized for sale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Balakrishnan consequently maintained that the registration was obtained without examining material circumstances. He used Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act of 2016 to argue that the promoter was compelled to disclose encumbrances and conflicts affecting the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this context, the High Court reviewed the scope of TNRERA’s authority when rival claims to ownership were asserted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court noted that Section 4(2)(l) of the RERA Act requires a promoter to provide declarations on legal title and encumbrances on the project land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It ruled that TNRERA may refuse registration if, based on the evidence presented, the promoter lacks title or there is an encumbrance that prevents registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the authority cannot resolve title disputes on its own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“However, it should be noted that when there are disputed title issues, it is not the TNRERA’s responsibility to investigate and resolve the matter. It is up to the individuals to contact the appropriate Civil Court, the Court stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court went on to say that a civil court had previously determined a prima facie case in Anandhan’s favor, and that an injunction remained in effect against Balakrishnan. As a result, the High Court determined that TNRERA was not required to reject the project registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court further stated that registration under RERA did not determine ownership rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Mere grant of registration by the TNRERA will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner in canvassing its plea before the Civil Court,” it stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court emphasized that Balakrishnan was free to pursue his title and construction claims in civil court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court further noted that the project had already been registered, and work was well underway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result, the writ petition was closed, leaving Balakrishnan free to pursue his claims in civil court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Senior Advocate G Rajagopalan, who was represented by GR Associates, appeared for Balakrishnan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran, an advocate, represented TNRERA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Senior Advocate TV Ramanujam appeared for Anandhan, as advised by Advocate R Ramya.<\/p>\n\n\n\n