Madras: The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a real estate project's registration granted by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, holding that a disputed question of title over the project land is a matter for the civil court and not one the Authority is required to adjudicate before granting registration.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by N. Balakrishnan, who claimed to be the owner of land in Thiruneermalai village, Tambaram taluk, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash TNRERA's proceedings dated 10.04.2026 registering a housing project on the land in favour of the second respondent, S. Anandhan.
The petitioner's case was that he had inherited the property from his father and held utility connections in his name, while the second respondent had filed a civil suit against him seeking a permanent injunction, in which an ex parte interim injunction had been granted and had remained pending for over three years. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent took advantage of that injunction to apply for project registration with TNRERA without disclosing the pending suit, that his detailed objection to the Authority went unanswered, that TNRERA later admitted the objection had been misplaced, and that the registration was accordingly liable to be cancelled.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 required a promoter to disclose any encumbrance on the land, that the pendency of the civil suit and the injunction obtained by the second respondent himself against the petitioner was a relevant factor TNRERA was statutorily bound to consider, and that the registration, having been granted without considering the petitioner's objection, could not withstand scrutiny.
Senior Counsel for the second respondent countered that the petitioner had repeatedly been relegated to the civil court by every authority he approached the District Revenue Officer, the CMDA and the Commissioner of Land Administration that the injunction obtained in the civil suit remained in force, that the petitioner's application to reject the plaint in that suit had been dismissed, and that the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the property nor was there any encumbrance requiring disclosure. Counsel for TNRERA submitted that the Authority had applied its mind to the available material and granted registration in accordance with law.
The court held that while Section 4(2)(l) of the Act requires a promoter to declare that the land is free of encumbrances, and TNRERA may reject registration where it is prima facie evident that the applicant lacks title or the land is encumbered, it is not for TNRERA to adjudicate disputed questions of title, which fall within the domain of the civil court.
Observing that the civil court had already found a prima facie case in favour of the second respondent and that the injunction was operating against the petitioner, the court held that "this case does not present the situation where TNRERA is required to consider rejecting the registration," and that the grant of registration would not prejudice the petitioner's ability to pursue his claim, including by way of counter-claim or separate suit, before the civil court.
Finding no merit in the writ petition, the court dismissed it, while keeping open the petitioner's liberty to approach the civil court, with no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel, for M/s. G.R. Associates.
For Respondent No.1/TNRERA: Ms. Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel, for Ms. R. Ramya, Advocate.
Case Title: N. Balakrishnan vs. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Another, W.P.No.32211 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.35399 and 35401 of 2026
