SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19622

- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21118-DB

WA No. 180 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI H. SHYAMASHETTY

S/O LATE A.N. SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

’PADMALEKHA’, KODISASTAN ROAD

GUDNMI VILLAGE

UDUPI TALUK-576 226.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

M/S PROVIDENT HOUSING LTD.,

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.8

ULSOOR ROAD

YELLAPPA CHITTY LAYOUT

BENGLAURU-560 042.

2.

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATION AUTHORITY

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK

UNITY BUILDING

Digitally

signed by

SUMA B N

Location:

High Court of

Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:21118-DB

WA No. 180 of 2023

CSI COMPOUND

BENGLAURU-560 027.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE

WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 02/01/2023

IN WP NO.18448/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE

JUDGE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Present writ appeal is against the order dated

02.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.18448/2021(GM-RES) by

which the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1/writ

petitioner was allowed by learned Single Judge by setting

aside the order dated 30.9.2020 passed by the respondent

No.2-Karnataka Real Estate Regulation Authority.

2.

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner contending that it is in the

business

of

real

estate

development

and

the

- 3 -

appellant/respondent No.2 had filed an application for

allotment of an apartment in one of the projects of the

respondent no.1/writ petitioner and was allotted a flat

bearing No.SUN-II-5G-506 on the 5th floor of apartment

complex knows as “Provident Sunworth” constructed on

the land bearing Sy.No.1 to 26 of Venkatapura village,

Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. Agreements of sale and

construction both dated 10.09.2014 was entered into on

the basis of commencement certificate that was issued by

the

Bangalore

Development

Authority.

That

the

construction building was completed and first partial

occupation certificate was issued by the Bangalore

Development Authority on 18.11.2015 and the second

partial occupation certificate was also issued. In the

meanwhile,

the

appellant

/respondent

No.2

sought

cancellation of the agreement on the ground that he had

learnt that land on which construction work was done, was

not acquired legally and that the respondent No.2/writ

petitioner had not obtained any communication from the

competent authority with respect to acquisition of land.

- 4 -

The respondent No.1/writ petitioner acceded to the

request of the appellant/respondent No.2 for cancellation

of agreements and allotment made in his favour and

refunded a sum of Rs.17,85,212/- on 04.12.2017 after

deduction of cancellation of charges and applicable taxes.

3.

Long

after

receipt

of

said

amount,

appellant/respondent No.2 approached the respondent

No.1/Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)

seeking refund of an amount of Rs.6,84,494/- along with

interest. Though objections with regard to maintainability

of the said complaint before respondent No.1 was raised,

the respondent No.1/RERA passed the order dated

30.09.2020 directing the respondent No.1/writ petitioner

to

refund

a

sum

of

Rs.6,84,494/-

to

the

appellant/respondent

No.2

within

60

days

from

30.09.2020 failing which it was directed said amount

would carry 2% interest per month. Aggrieved by the said

order, respondent No.1/writ petitioner approached this

Court by filing said writ petition.

- 5 -

4.

Taking note of the undisputed fact of the matter

that project had commenced and partial occupation

certificates

was

issued

in

favour

of

the

appellant/respondent No.2 on 18.11.2015 and 27.04.2017

and that Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,

2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’ for short) had

come into force on and from 01.05.2016 and Rules

thereunder were notified on 10.07.2017 and that by that

time the said Act was put in force, the project was

completed and it was not an “on-going project” within the

meaning of the Act and that the respondent No.1 lacked

jurisdiction of the matter, learned Single Judge allowed the

writ petition on the sole ground of respondent No.1 is not

having jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Aggrieved by

the same, appellant/respondent No.2 is before this Court.

5.

Sri. Harish Kumar M.S, learned counsel for the

appellant/respondent No.2 reiterating the grounds urged

in the memorandum of appeal contended that originally he

- 6 -

had approached to the District Consumer Court seeking

remedy of refund of money and on setting up of

respondent No.1 under the RERA Act, the said complaint

was returned to be presented before the respondent No.1.

Accordingly, appellant/respondent No.2 presented the

complaint before respondent No.1. That though the issue

of jurisdiction was raised, after hearing the parties,

respondent No.1 passed impugned order. Thus, he

submits that appellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top