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

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35731

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
NRA PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:AKASH R BANTIA ,Respondent Advocate:

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

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top