The enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) marked a significant shift in the regulation of India’s real estate sector. By mandating disclosures and introducing accountability mechanisms, it has enhanced transparency and strengthened buyer confidence. However, a persistent misconception continues to shape buyer behaviour—the belief that RERA registration guarantees a legally sound, dispute-free title. This assumption is flawed. While RERA improves access to information, it does not eliminate the need for independent title due diligence, and overlooking this distinction often exposes buyers to serious legal and financial risks.

RERA Does Not Guarantee a Clean Title

At the outset, it is important to clarify that RERA does not certify or guarantee a clean title to property. The statutory framework is disclosure-driven rather than adjudicatory in nature. Under Section 4(2)(l)(B), the promoter is required to disclose details of the legal title to the land along with supporting documentation. Further, Section 11 places responsibility on the promoter for the accuracy of such representations. However, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority does not conduct a conclusive verification or adjudication of title at the stage of registration. Approval is granted based on the documents submitted, which means that RERA registration should be understood as a compliance milestone—not as a legal assurance of title validity.

Many home buyers also ask a question – “The Bank has given approval to the Project, is it safe to buy a flat”?” The simple answer is NO. The business of banking is primarily dependent upon issuance of loans to high networth projects. It

Essential Title Documents Buyers Must Verify

In this context, independent verification of title documents becomes indispensable. A prudent buyer must examine the chain of title from pre-independence to ensure continuity and detect any gaps or irregularities. The root or mother deed must be scrutinised to establish the origin of ownership, while an Encumbrance Certificate should be obtained to identify registered charges or liabilities on the property. In cases involving joint development, the development agreement between the landowner and promoter must be carefully reviewed, along with any power of attorney relied upon by the developer. Equally important is verifying land use approvals, zoning compliance, and sanctioned building plans. Buyers must also undertake litigation searches to identify pending disputes or claims affecting the property. The common mistake lies in relying solely on disclosures available on the RERA portal without independently validating the underlying documents.

Right to Sue for Defective Title

Despite these risks, RERA provides a strong remedial framework in cases of defective title. Section 18(2) of RERA expressly entitles an allottee to claim compensation where the promoter’s representation regarding title is found to be false or defective. This provision recognises the seriousness of title defects and imposes liability on the promoter for losses suffered by the buyer. Notably, such claims are treated differently from delay-based claims and may not be constrained by conventional limitation considerations in the same manner. However, this remedy is inherently corrective—it operates after harm has occurred and cannot substitute preventive due diligence.

Promoter’s Liability for Title Defects

The liability imposed on promoters under RERA is both significant and continuing. The obligation begins with disclosure under Section 4 and extends to the accuracy of all representations made under Section 11. Where title defects are established, Section 18(2) creates a direct statutory liability to compensate the allottee. Importantly, this liability cannot be contractually excluded through clauses in the agreement for sale. This is particularly relevant in joint development arrangements, where the promoter’s rights may derive from agreements with landowners, thereby increasing the complexity and risk of title disputes.

Hidden Risks in RERA-Approved Projects

Even in RERA-approved projects, several hidden risks may persist, often escaping the attention of unsuspecting buyers. Fragmented ownership structures, where multiple landowners are involved, may lead to incomplete or disputed consent. Pending litigation, including title suits, acquisition proceedings, or family disputes, can significantly impair ownership rights. Certain properties may be subject to conditional titles, such as government grants or land-use restrictions, which impose limitations on transfer or development. Joint development agreements may give rise to overlapping rights between landowners and developers, particularly in relation to unsold inventory. Additionally, gaps in the chain of title, unregistered transfers, or reliance on defective powers of attorney can create serious legal vulnerabilities. It is also not uncommon for the same land to be sold multiple times by the same owner due to fraudulent intent or greed, leading to competing claims over the property. Even encumbrances may not always be fully visible through standard searches, particularly in the case of equitable mortgages.

Conclusion

RERA enhances transparency and imposes accountability, but it does not replace the need for independent legal verification. Buyers who treat RERA registration as a substitute for title due diligence expose themselves to avoidable disputes and financial loss. While the law provides remedies, including compensation for defective title, reliance on post-facto enforcement is inherently uncertain and time-consuming. A cautious and informed approach—anchored in thorough title verification—is essential. In real estate transactions, regulatory compliance may inspire confidence, but true security ultimately depends on diligent verification of title.