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