- 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.