A Minor's Share in the Land: Why One Joint Development Project Could Not Get RERA Registration

A family owned 0.220 acres at Andilo mouza near Bhubaneswar. After the recorded owner died in September 2020, her heirs signed a development deal with a builder in March 2021: 40% of the built-up area for the family, 60% for the developer. Two months later one of the sons died, leaving a widow and a minor son. The widow signed the registered joint development agreement and power of attorney on 31 January 2022, for herself and as the boy's natural guardian. The building plan was approved. Then the state's RERA refused to register the project.

On 6 November 2026, the Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld that refusal. It held that because the development deal gave the builder the right to sell 60% of the flats with a proportionate share of land, it went "beyond a mere arrangement for construction" and affected the minor's share. Without the prior permission of the District Judge under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the minor's share "will remain vulnerable to challenge". For Bengaluru buyers of flats in joint development projects, the lesson is about the landowners behind the builder.

The short answer. In OREAT Appeal No. 152/2025, the tribunal held that the builder had to obtain court permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act before exercising sale rights that affect a minor co-owner's share, and that without it the promoter cannot properly satisfy the title declaration required by Section 4(2)(l)(A) of the RERA Act. The rejection of the project's registration was upheld, with liberty to reapply after compliance. The trade-off for buyers: a joint development project can look fully approved, with a sanctioned plan, while a title gap affecting a minor's share remains open.

What happened in the Dugar Swastik case?

According to the Odisha REAT judgment in OREAT Appeal No. 152/2025, the land was recorded in the name of Kumundalata Sahoo, who died on 10 September 2020 leaving three sons and a daughter. The heirs agreed on 22 March 2021 to develop the land with Dugar Realty and Infrastructure Private Limited, which paid them Rs 16 lakh. One son, Trinath Sahoo, died on 10 May 2021, leaving his widow and a minor son.

A registered joint development agreement and a registered general power of attorney were executed on 31 January 2022, with the widow signing in her own right and as natural guardian of the minor. The Bhubaneswar Development Authority approved the building plan on 25 August 2023, and the developer applied for RERA registration of "Dugar Swastik" on 1 November 2023. Odisha RERA asked for the District Judge's permission under the guardianship law. On 2 August 2024, it rejected the application because deficiencies had not been complied with, giving liberty to apply afresh.

What did each side argue before the tribunal?

The developer argued that Odisha RERA had misread the guardianship law, and that court permission under Section 8(2) is "not at all required when the minor does not intend to sell his share in the project land". It called the rejection arbitrary and asked for it to be set aside.

Odisha RERA's counsel took a different line. It argued that on the death of Trinath Sahoo, the earlier development agreement had lapsed, that development of the land now required the District Judge's permission, and that despite "ample opportunities" the developer had not obtained it. It also pointed out that the developer had been given liberty to file a fresh application once it had the permission and other documents.

The tribunal noted a gap in the regulator's own record: the rejection order of 2 August 2024 did not list the specific deficiencies, and the file notes of the registration branch did not clearly specify them either. It was only from the developer's own appeal memo that the missing court permission emerged as the issue. The tribunal decided the appeal on that issue.

Why did the guardian's signature not settle the matter?

The developer argued that the mother was not alienating her son's share, so no court permission was needed. The tribunal read Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which it quoted in full. Under Section 8(2), a natural guardian "shall not, without the previous permission of the court" mortgage, charge or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the minor's immovable property. Under Section 8(3), a disposal in contravention "is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him". Section 8(4) allows permission only "in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor".

The tribunal then read the development agreement. It gave the developer exclusive development rights and liberty "to sell 60% of the total super built up area" with a "proportionate impartible undivided share in the project land", and the power of attorney authorised the developer to execute sale deeds for that 60%. That, it said, "goes beyond a mere arrangement for construction" and involves "substantial development and alienation rights affecting the minor's undivided share".

How does this connect to RERA registration?

Section 4(2)(l)(A) of the RERA Act requires the promoter to file a declaration, supported by an affidavit, that it has legal title to the land, or, where the land is owned by someone else, legally valid documents authenticating that title. The tribunal held that because the minor's share would "remain vulnerable to challenge" without the court's permission, Odisha RERA's insistence on that permission "appears to be reasonable", and the rejection was "legally correct".

The judgment also records that on 20 August 2025, another co-sharer, Somanath Sahoo, died, leaving a widow and two minor children. The appeal was dismissed, but the developer keeps the liberty given in the original order to reapply after obtaining the court's permission and curing the deficiencies.

What should a Bengaluru buyer check in a joint development project?

In a joint development, the builder's right to sell your flat comes from the landowners. Our explainers on joint development and who counts as a promoter and on defective title and the Section 4(2)(l) title declaration cover the RERA side. For the landowner family, use this list.

1. Get the full title chain and list every landowner who signed the joint development agreement and power of attorney.
2. Ask whether any landowner has died since the agreement, and who inherited the share.
3. Ask specifically whether any co-owner is a minor, and if so, who signed for the minor.
4. Where a minor's share is involved, ask for a copy of the court order granting permission under Section 8(2).
5. Check that the project is registered with RERA, not just that the building plan is approved.
6. Read the title declaration and documents filed on the RERA portal for the project.
7. Have a lawyer review the title for any share that could be voidable at the instance of a minor.

How far does an Odisha ruling apply to a Bengaluru project?

This is an Odisha decision, and Bengaluru buyers should read it as persuasive guidance rather than a Karnataka ruling. Neither law it relies on is specific to Odisha: the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the RERA Act, 2016 are Acts of Parliament, and Section 4(2)(l)(A) reads the same for a Karnataka project. Whether court permission is needed in any particular project depends on the exact rights granted in the agreement, and that is a question for a lawyer reading the documents.

The ruling also shows a RERA authority looking behind a sanctioned plan at the title documents. For a buyer, a project that cannot be registered because of a title issue is not one to pay a booking amount into until the issue is resolved. Note too what the order does not decide: it says nothing about buyers who may already have paid in such a project, and it does not rule on Odisha RERA's argument that the earlier agreement lapsed on a co-owner's death. Its holding is limited to the need for court permission before the developer exercises sale rights over the minor's share.

Frequently asked questions

Does a builder need court permission if a landowner is a minor?

In the Dugar Swastik case, the Odisha REAT held yes, where the development agreement gives the builder sale rights affecting the minor's share. It said prior permission of the District Judge under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was necessary before exercising those rights.

Is a guardian's signature on a development agreement enough?

Not by itself, according to this ruling. Section 8(2) bars a natural guardian from transferring any part of a minor's immovable property without the court's previous permission, and Section 8(3) makes a disposal in contravention voidable at the instance of the minor. The tribunal said the minor's share would remain vulnerable without it.

Why was the project's RERA registration rejected?

Odisha RERA rejected the application on 2 August 2024 because deficiencies, including the missing court permission, were not cured. The tribunal upheld this on 6 November 2026, linking it to the title declaration required by Section 4(2)(l)(A), and noted the developer may reapply after compliance.

What should I ask for if a joint development project involves a minor's land?

Ask for the list of all landowners and heirs, who signed for any minor, and a copy of the court order granting permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Check that the project is registered with RERA and have a lawyer review the title before paying.

Last updated 2026-11-15. PropNewz Team.