Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
M.A.No.26 of 2024 in Appeal (SR) No.70 of 2024
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, dismissed M.A.No.26 of 2024 in Appeal (SR) No.70 of 2024 on 12 April 2024. The Tribunal refused four landowners permission to appeal against recovery proceedings involving land in Ninnakarai Village, Chengalpattu District, and held that their dispute with M/s RVS Developers Private Limited must be resolved before a competent Civil Court.
What the case concerns
M.A.No.26 of 2024 was filed by G. Nalini, B. Govindaraj, G. Dineshkumar and M. Saktivel. They sought leave to appeal against orders dated 10 February 2022 and 22 February 2022 in Execution Petition Nos.49 to 70 of 2021.
The proposed appeal concerned land in Survey Nos.385/1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 2C, and Survey Nos.123/2A, 2B1, 2B2, 5A, 5B1A, 5B1B, 5B1C, 5B2 and 5C of Ninnakarai Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and District. The total stated extent is 2.66 acres.
Background to the recovery proceedings
The Adjudicating Officer of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had ordered recovery under Section 40(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for non-compliance with orders in multiple compensation claim petitions.
Key facts recorded by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal were:
- The compensation claim orders had become final because M/s RVS Developers Private Limited had not appealed against them.
- M/s RVS Developers Private Limited had entered into sale agreements with respondents 1 to 22.
- The applicants claimed ownership of the land and stated that they had entered into a sale agreement with the developer and executed a general power of attorney in its favour.
- The applicants were not parties to the sale agreements between respondents 1 to 22 and the developer.
Why permission to appeal was refused
The applicants had also filed three unnumbered applications before the Adjudicating Officer seeking to set aside and stay the execution orders and obtain permission to contest the execution petitions. Those applications were dismissed as not maintainable. The applicants then filed one appeal rather than three separate appeals.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found no reason to permit the applicants to challenge the common execution order. It held that the dispute between the applicants and M/s RVS Developers Private Limited did not fall within the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, because the applicants were not parties to the sale agreements with respondents 1 to 22.
The Tribunal dismissed M.A.No.26 of 2024 as lacking merit and consequently rejected Appeal (SR) No.70 of 2024. It stated that the applicants' dispute with the developer could be resolved only before a competent Civil Court.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the Tribunal decide who owns the 2.66 acres in Ninnakarai Village?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal refused permission to appeal and stated that the dispute between the applicants and M/s RVS Developers Private Limited could be resolved only before a competent Civil Court.
Why could the landowners not challenge the recovery proceedings before the Tribunal?
The Tribunal found that the applicants were not parties to the sale agreements between respondents 1 to 22 and M/s RVS Developers Private Limited. It therefore held that the applicants' dispute with the developer did not fall within the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Were the compensation orders against the developer still open to appeal?
The Tribunal recorded that the compensation claim orders had become final because M/s RVS Developers Private Limited had not appealed against them.
What happened to Appeal (SR) No.70 of 2024?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and consequently rejected Appeal (SR) No.70 of 2024.
