M & Z Legal – Advocates & Solicitors
The jurisdictional problem
A title dispute can emerge while a homebuyer is pursuing refund, compensation or regulatory compliance before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The existence of parallel civil litigation, however, does not answer the jurisdictional question. The proper inquiry is which forum is empowered to grant the particular relief sought.
The statutory division
Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 excludes civil-court jurisdiction only in respect of matters that the Authority, adjudicating officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Section 31 permits complaints alleging contraventions of the Act; Sections 18, 71 and 72 govern important monetary remedies. None of these provisions makes the Authority a general civil court for declaring ownership against all rival claimants.
Incidental findings versus declarations of title
A regulator may need to inspect sale deeds, encumbrance certificates, development agreements or pending litigation to determine whether a promoter made false disclosures or breached a statutory duty. Such incidental examination is different from conclusively declaring which of several competing claimants owns the land. A suit seeking cancellation of conveyances or declarations binding third parties may properly remain within civil-court jurisdiction.
Parallel proceedings
A pending title suit does not automatically stay a RERA complaint. Nor does a RERA complaint extinguish a civil action whose principal relief falls outside RERA jurisdiction. Courts should consider the identity of parties, issues and reliefs, and guard against inconsistent findings or double recovery. A bare assertion that a title suit is pending should not be a substitute for examining the statutory cause of action.
Practical approach
Counsel should separate prayers into regulatory compliance, refund or compensation, and proprietary declarations. The pleading should identify the source of each statutory duty, the loss claimed and whether deciding it necessarily requires a binding declaration against a non-promoter third party.
Conclusion
The better view is a relief-specific jurisdictional test. RERA can enforce promoter obligations even where title questions form part of the factual background, but it should not be treated as a universal forum for civil title adjudication.
