Joint Venture Disputes Between Landowner and Developer Fall Outside the Ambit of RERA: MPREAT in Bhopal Development Authority vs. Roop Laxmi Singh (2026)
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MPREAT), in its decision dated 08 January 2026 in Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh, has authoritatively clarified that disputes arising out of joint venture or development agreements between a landowner and a developer do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Tribunal held that a landowner who permits development of his land under such an arrangement cannot be treated as an “allottee” under RERA and, consequently, cannot invoke remedies available under the Act against the developer.
The dispute arose from a registered Joint Venture Agreement dated 22 August 2012 entered into between the respondent, the owner of land admeasuring 0.37 acres situated in Khasra No. 354/3, and the appellant, Bhopal Development Authority. Under the terms of the agreement, the appellant was required to develop a real estate project on the respondent’s land and, in consideration thereof, was to provide the respondent with a semi-developed plot bearing Plot No. 23, measuring 6,527 square feet. Although the appellant obtained requisite permissions and commenced development, the project was not completed and the agreed plot was not handed over to the respondent.
Following the enforcement of RERA, the project being an ongoing one, the appellant registered it with the RERA Authority. Alleging breach of the joint venture agreement, the respondent approached the RERA Authority seeking relief. The Adjudicating Officer directed the appellant to pay compensation at the rate of ₹2 per square foot per month from 27 August 2014 till the date of possession, along with future compensation and an additional sum of ₹10,000 towards mental and physical agony. The Authority also directed the appellant to complete the project and initiated proceedings under Section 59 of the Act for violation of Section 3. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant primarily contended that the relationship between the parties was not that of a promoter and allottee but of co-promoters under a joint venture agreement. It was argued that the dispute was purely contractual in nature and therefore outside the ambit of RERA. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the appellant was a promoter and that the respondent qualified as an allottee since a specific plot was agreed to be given to him under the development arrangement.
The Tribunal examined the Joint Venture Agreement dated 22 August 2012 in detail and noted that the respondent was the undisputed owner of the land on which the project was developed. By permitting the appellant to carry out development activities on his land, the respondent was not merely a recipient of a future plot but an active participant in the project. The Tribunal observed that the agreement was in the nature of a development arrangement and not an allotment or sale of a plot by the appellant to the respondent.
Interpreting the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Act, the Tribunal held that both the person who constructs a real estate project and the person who causes such construction on his land fall within the definition of a promoter. Consequently, a landowner who allows development of his land in exchange for consideration, whether monetary or in kind, assumes the role of a co-promoter. The Tribunal categorically held that the nature or form of consideration received under such an agreement is irrelevant in determining promoter status.
The Tribunal further examined the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act and concluded that the respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements to be treated as an allottee. The land in question was not allotted or sold to the respondent by the appellant, nor was there any agreement of sale executed in favour of the respondent. The respondent, being the original owner of the land, could not be treated as an allottee merely because he was to receive a developed plot as consideration for permitting development.
On this basis, the Tribunal held that the dispute was one between co-promoters and not between a promoter and an allottee. It was observed that RERA does not contemplate adjudication of disputes between co-promoters arising out of joint development or joint venture agreements. Such disputes, according to the Tribunal, must be resolved through appropriate civil remedies or before consumer forums, if otherwise maintainable, but not before RERA Authorities.
Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside both impugned orders dated 04 August 2020 and 02 January 2020 passed by the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer. The complaint filed by the respondent before the RERA Authority was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The decision reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries of RERA and serves as an important precedent preventing the expansion of RERA’s scope to cover purely contractual disputes between landowners and developers acting as co-promoters.
Author Bio
