Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35731
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
NRA PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 21133 of 2024
The court mandated timely enforcement of RERA orders, emphasizing compliance by revenue authorities to avoid personal costs for non-compliance.
Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 18 - Complaint filed under RERA for refund of payment towards unit bookings - Respondents directed to enforce recovery certificate issued by revenue authorities - Similar case previously decided by Co-ordinate Bench requiring compliance within three months. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Compliance - The court emphasized the necessity for timely enforcement of RERA orders, warning of potential personal costs for non-compliance. (Paras 2-4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a complaint under RERA, leading to an order for refund, but respondents failed to act on the recovery certificate issued.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the enforcement of the recovery certificate within three months.
Issues: The main issue was the enforcement of RERA orders and the compliance of revenue authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that similar cases necessitate compliance with RERA orders, reinforcing the need for timely action by authorities.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners’ grievance (Para 2) |
| 2. the petitioners are similarly (Para 3) |
| 3. accordingly, the writ petition (Para 4) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”), and RERA passed an order directing respondent No. 4 to refund the payment made by the petitioners towards their respective unit bookings. Following this order, respondent No. 5 issued a recovery certificate to respondent No. 1 to recover the amount, along with interest, as arrears of land revenue.
2. The petitioners’ grievance is that, despite representations made to recover the amount in light of the revenue recovery certificate issued by respondent No. 5, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have not taken any steps. Therefore, in similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Errol John Noronha and others v. State of Karnataka and others in WP No. 6545/2023 , directed the revenue authorities therein to implement the subject K-RERA orders and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three months. Failure to comply may result in a heavy cost personally payable by the concerned parties, upon an appropriate application being moved by the petitioner therein.
3. The petitioners are similarly situated homebuyers, and the order passed by RERA in their case is of a similar nature to that considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to enforce the directions of respondent No. 5, as outlined in Annexures A to A6, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
