- in United States
- within Real Estate and Construction, International Law and Law Department Performance topic(s)
Introduction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhopal v. Shri Ji Builders and Developers, has clarified the scope of powers exercisable by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority while considering an application for registration of a real estate project under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, which had directed the Authority to process the registration application of the real estate project named “Krishna Orchid”. The judgment is significant as it draws a clear distinction between the regulatory function of RERA and the adjudicatory function of civil courts in matters relating to title disputes.
Background of the Dispute
The respondent, Shri Ji Builders and Developers, had applied for registration of its proposed real estate project “Krishna Orchid” under Section 4 of the RERA Act. The project related to land situated at Village Khajuri Kalan, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. The RERA Authority rejected the application on multiple grounds. The Authority stated that the promoter had not submitted the diverted Khasra certificate, despite the land requiring conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use. It also raised doubts regarding the title of the land, particularly because the land had been sold in 1999 by a cooperative society, namely Shanti Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit. According to the Authority, there was no material to show that the permission of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had been obtained for the said transaction. The Authority also noted that the original resolution register of the cooperative society had not been produced and that the promoter had failed to upload its income tax returns on the statutory portal.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the promoter filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the Authority to process the registration application after prima facie verification of title through registered sale deeds and connected revenue records. The Single Judge also granted time to the promoter to submit the diverted Khasra certificate.
The RERA Authority challenged this order in writ appeal.
Maintainability of the Writ Petition
One of the first issues before the Division Bench was whether the writ petition was maintainable when the RERA Act provides an appellate remedy before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 44. The Authority argued that the promoter ought to have filed an appeal before the Tribunal and that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition. However, the Court noted that at the relevant time, the Appellate Tribunal was not effectively functional due to vacancies in the posts of Judicial Member and Technical Member. As a result, the Tribunal was not available as an effective forum for hearing appeals.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that the rule of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a rule of discretion and self-restraint. Where the statutory remedy is not efficacious or practically available, the High Court can entertain a writ petition. Accordingly, the Court held that the learned Single Judge was justified in entertaining the writ petition.
Scope of RERA Authority’s Power
The central issue in the case was whether the RERA Authority could reject a project registration application by undertaking a detailed inquiry into historical title issues. The High Court held that the RERA Authority performs a regulatory and facilitative function. Its role is to verify whether the promoter has submitted the documents required under the RERA Act and Rules, and whether the application prima facie satisfies statutory requirements. However, the Authority cannot assume the role of a civil court and adjudicate complicated or disputed questions of title. The Court observed that Section 4 of the RERA Act requires the promoter to submit documents relating to ownership, title, land-use permission, financial disclosures and other prescribed details.
Section 5 empowers the Authority to reject an application if it is incomplete or contains discrepancies that cannot be corrected. However, this does not mean that the Authority can conduct a full-fledged adjudication of old title transactions. The Court emphasized that if serious title disputes exist, they must be decided by competent civil courts, revenue courts or other appropriate forums. RERA cannot conduct a collateral adjudication of title disputes under the guise of processing a registration application.
Historical Sale Transaction Could Not Be Reopened
A major objection raised by the Authority related to the sale transaction of 29 December 1999, under which the cooperative society had transferred the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The Authority questioned the validity of this transaction on the ground that there was no evidence of permission from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and no original resolution register showing authorization for the sale. The High Court rejected this approach. It noted that the transaction had taken place more than two decades earlier. Registered sale deeds had been executed, mutation had been completed in the names of the buyers, and the land had remained in possession of the successors-in-interest without interruption or challenge for a long period.
The Court held that such a completed and registered transaction, which had remained undisturbed for more than twenty years, could not be reopened by the RERA Authority at the stage of project registration. If any third party wished to challenge the transaction, the proper remedy would be before a competent civil court and not before the RERA Authority. The Court also held that subsequent statutory amendments requiring permission of the Registrar could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate a transaction completed in 1999. Unless a statute expressly provides for retrospective operation, it cannot be used to disturb vested rights or completed transactions.
Curable Defects Cannot Justify Rejection
The Court then examined the other objections raised by the Authority. With respect to the diverted Khasra certificate, the Court held that the deficiency was curable. The promoter had already initiated diversion proceedings, and the record showed that the proceedings had substantially progressed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was correct in granting time to submit the final certificate.
Similarly, the non-uploading of income tax returns was held to be a procedural and administrative deficiency. While the Authority was justified in requiring the promoter to comply with the statutory disclosure requirements, such non-compliance was curable and did not justify outright rejection of the entire registration application. Regarding the non-production of the original resolution register of the cooperative society, the Court observed that the document related to a transaction that had taken place approximately twenty-five years earlier. Insisting on production of such historical internal records, despite the existence of registered sale deeds and revenue records, would impose an unreasonable and practically impossible burden on the promoter.
Final Decision
The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had adopted a balanced and legally correct approach. The Single Judge had not ignored the statutory requirements under RERA but had merely directed the Authority to remain within its regulatory limits. Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the RERA Authority to proceed with the registration of the “Krishna Orchid” project in accordance with the RERA Act and Rules, after verifying title through registered documents and revenue records and after the promoter submits the diverted Khasra certificate and other required documents.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is important for both real estate promoters and regulatory authorities. It reinforces that RERA is intended to ensure transparency, accountability and consumer protection in the real estate sector. However, it is not meant to function as a civil court for adjudicating complex title disputes. The decision also clarifies that curable procedural defects should not ordinarily result in outright rejection of a project registration application. Authorities must distinguish between substantive non-compliance and procedural deficiencies that can be rectified.
Most importantly, the judgment protects promoters from having long-settled historical transactions reopened in administrative proceedings, while preserving the right of any aggrieved party to approach the appropriate civil forum. The ruling therefore strikes a balance between regulatory oversight and commercial certainty. It ensures that genuine real estate projects are not stalled on technical or historical objections, while also preserving the RERA Authority’s power to insist upon statutory compliance and transparency.
Conclusion
The judgment clarifies that RERA Authorities must limit themselves to prima facie verification of statutory compliance and cannot adjudicate historical or disputed title issues like a civil court. The Court also held that curable procedural defects, such as pending document submission, should not lead to outright rejection of project registration. The ruling balances regulatory scrutiny with commercial certainty while preserving the right of parties to approach competent courts for title disputes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
