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) 35744

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
SANJEEVA C – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:AKASH R BANTIA ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Service of notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with.

2. 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 the order, Respondent No.5 issued a recovery certificate to Respondent No.1 to recover the amount with interest as arrears of land revenue.

3. 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 to implement the subject K-RERA orders and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three months, failing which, a heavy personal cost may be levied on an appropriate application being moved by the petitioner

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