Court Rules RERA Authority Cannot Adjudicate Historical Land Title Disputes; Upholds Single Judge's Directive for Registration Compliance
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the limited jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in adjudicating historical land title disputes, emphasizing its regulatory and facilitative role under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Division Bench, comprising Mr. Vivek Rusia, A.C.J., and Mr. Pradeep Mittal, J., dismissed the writ appeal filed by the M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Bhopal, challenging the order of a Single Judge that directed the registration of a real estate project despite alleged title discrepancies.
The case arose from the Authority's rejection of an application by Shri Ji Builders and Developers for the registration of the "Krishna Orchid" project. The rejection was based on several grounds, including purported defects in the land title due to a 1999 transaction by Shanti Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, non-submission of a diverted Khasra certificate, and procedural deficiencies such as the non-uploading of Income Tax Returns.
The Single Judge had previously held that the RERA Authority did not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over land titles, particularly when such transactions had long been finalized through registration and mutation. The court also found that requiring retrospective compliance with amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, was unsustainable.
The Division Bench upheld these findings, emphasizing that the RERA Authority's role is to verify prima facie compliance with statutory requirements rather than conduct detailed forensic investigations of title disputes. The court noted that the 1999 transaction had achieved finality through registration and mutation, and any challenge to it should be pursued in appropriate civil forums, not administratively by the RERA Authority.
The judgment further acknowledged the non-functionality of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal due to vacancies, which justified the maintainability of the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The court reiterated the principle that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a discretionary guide, not an absolute bar.
The High Court directed the Authority to proceed with the project's registration after verifying compliance with statutory requirements, allowing for the correction of procedural deficiencies within a stipulated timeframe. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that regulatory bodies operate within their prescribed mandates while facilitating the development and registration of real estate projects.
Bottom line:-
Real Estate Regulation Authority does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed titles; its function is regulatory and facilitative under the RERA Act, 2016.
Statutory provision(s):
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Sections 4, 5, 44; Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 38; Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d); Administrative Law principles on alternative remedies and appellate jurisdiction.
