A major dispute arose over Flat No. 1703 in the “Green World” residential project in Belapur, Maharashtra. The promoter initially executed a registered sale deed in March 2016 in favour of Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. Later, the same promoter executed a second agreement for sale in 2017 in favour of Madan Kishan Gurow and others, who paid consideration, took a bank loan, and claimed to have taken physical possession in 2019.
Sana Hospitality approached the RERA Appellate Forum earlier and secured an order directing the promoter to hand over possession to it. However, the second purchasers filed a civil suit seeking:
-
A declaration that their 2017 agreement was valid
-
A declaration that they were bona fide purchasers without notice
-
Cancellation of the 2016 sale deed executed in favour of Sana Hospitality
-
Injunctions protecting their possession
Sana Hospitality argued before the civil court that Section 79 of RERA barred civil court jurisdiction. They contended that the entire matter fell within the exclusive domain of RERA authorities.
The civil court refused to dismiss the suit, following which Sana Hospitality approached the High Court challenging the maintainability of the suit.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice N. J. Jamadar delivered a detailed judgment on 25 November 2025, clarifying the legal boundaries of RERA authorities and their powers.
RERA Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Decide Title Disputes
The Court held that RERA and its Appellate Tribunal cannot adjudicate title disputes, especially when two different purchasers claim rights to the same flat under separate registered documents. RERA’s role is regulatory, not adjudicatory on property ownership.
No Power to Issue Declarations or Injunctions
The Court stated that declaratory reliefs, injunctions, and cancellation of sale deeds fall exclusively within civil court jurisdiction.
These remedies arise under the Specific Relief Act, which is not incorporated into the RERA Act.
Section 79 of RERA Does Not Remove Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Property Rights
While Section 79 bars civil courts from matters that RERA is competent to decide, it does not convert RERA into a civil court. The Court clarified that RERA is not empowered to:
-
Cancel registered sale deeds
-
Declare title
-
Decide competing ownership claims
-
Grant interim or permanent injunctions
Such powers belong solely to civil courts unless specifically removed by statute, which RERA does not do.
RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Execution Power Does Not Make It a Civil Court
The Court acknowledged that RERA orders can be executed as if they were decrees, but this execution mechanism does not grant RERA the substantive jurisdiction of civil courts.
Execution ≠ jurisdiction to decide title.
Outcome of the Case
The Bombay High Court dismissed Sana Hospitality’s revision plea and held that the civil suit filed by Madan Kishan Gurow and others was fully maintainable. The Court allowed the civil proceedings to continue, confirming that civil courts alone must determine:
-
Which sale deed is valid
-
Who holds lawful title
-
Whether declarations or injunctions are justified
Why This Judgment Matters
1. Clarifies Limits of RERA’s Authority
The ruling makes clear that RERA is meant for regulatory issues such as:
-
Delayed possession
-
Compensation
-
Refunds
-
Builder violations
But not ownership disputes.
2. Reinforces Exclusive Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
Disputes involving:
-
Validity of sale deeds
-
Competing agreements
-
Bona fide purchaser rights
-
Possession claims
-
Injunctions
must go before civil courts.
3. Prevents Misuse of RERA as a Substitute for Civil Litigation
Builders or purchasers cannot use RERA to short-circuit proper civil law procedures. Title adjudication must follow due process in civil courts.
4. Provides Clarity for Homebuyers and Developers
This judgment helps buyers, developers, lawyers, and RERA practitioners clearly understand where to file which type of dispute, reducing confusion and jurisdictional errors.
