Dismissed¶50

P K Chakkaravarthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Jul 2025WP/27612/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition by counsel's memo; petition dismissed as withdrawn; WP No. 27612 of 2024 (GM-RES); Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; enforcement of K-RERA directions under Section 40(1) of RERA Act 2016 and Rule 25 of RERA Rules 2017; recovery procedure under Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964; Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District; Tehsildar Anekal; K-RERA impleaded vide court order 18.04.2024; S2 Homes and GPA holders, Electronic City/Hebbagodi; pending before Registrar for office objections; B M Shyam Prasad J.; decided 30 July 2025; no substantive adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The petition was permitted to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as withdrawn; no other relief granted and no liberty to file afresh expressly recorded in the order. ¶50

P K Chakkaravarthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The petition was permitted to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as withdrawn; no other relief granted and no liberty to file afresh expressly recorded in the order.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether R-1 (Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District) and R-2 (Tehsildar, Anekal) should be directed to enforce payment of amounts due from R-4 to R-8 in accordance with the recovery procedure under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for enforcement of the K-RERA directions at Annexure-A issued under Section 40(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 25 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners recording that they do not wish to proceed with the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 27612 of 2024 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad, oral order dated 30-07-2025): the petitioners, P K Chakkaravarthy and K. E. Tulasi, had sought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, and the Tehsildar, Anekal (R-1 and R-2) to enforce payment of amounts due from R-4 to R-8 in accordance with the recovery procedure under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for enforcement of K-RERA directions at Annexure-A issued under Section 40(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 25 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. Before any adjudication, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed a Memo recording that the petitioners did not wish to proceed and requesting withdrawal with liberty to file afresh in case of future exigencies. The Court held that, in the light of the memo, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No issue was decided, no precedent was cited, and the order yields no citable holding on the RERA recovery-enforcement question.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29434 WP No. 27612 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27612 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P K CHAKKARAVARTHY

¶9

S/O LATE KATTIMUTHU,

¶10

AGED 42 YEARS FLAT NO. G-25, ITTINA SARVA APARTMENTS-2,

¶11

4^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, HONGASANDRA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU URBAN-560068.

¶12

K. E. TULASI

¶13

W/O P.K. CHAKRAVARTHY, AGED 39 YEARS, FLAT NO. G-25, ITTINA SARVA APARTMENTS-2,

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

4^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, HONGASANDRA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU URBAN-560068.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SMT. FEBA NISHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:29434 WP No. 27612 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE TEHSILDAR ANEKAL VINAYAKA NAGAR, ANEKAL, KARNATAKA 562106.

¶24

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, SECOND FLOOR, SILVER JUBLIEE BLOCK MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560027. VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.04.2024.

¶25

M/S S2 HOMES SY NO. 136B1, 2^ND CROSS, ANANTHA NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY PH2, BENGALURU URBAN-560100.

¶26

RAMAREDDY GPA HOLDER HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, OPP BIOCON LIMITED HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY

¶27

BANGALORE URBAN-560100.

¶28

C. VIJAYA GPA HOLDER HEBBAGODI VILLAGE OPP BIOCON LIMITED HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU URBAN-560100.

¶29

RAHUL R. REDDY GPA HOLDER HEBBAGODI VILLAGE OPP BIOCON LIMITED HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALURU URBAN-560100.

¶30

R. RASHMI GPA HOLDER HEBBAGODI VILLAGE OPP BIOCON LIMITED

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:29434 WP No. 27612 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALURU URBAN-560100

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 AND 2 TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS DUE FROM R-4 TO R-8 IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND RULES THERE UNDER, FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF K-RERA AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER SECTION 40(1) OF REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016 AND RULE 25 OF REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) RULES, 2017.

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:29434 WP No. 27612 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed

¶45

a Memo, which in its material part, reads as under:

¶46

"It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner had filed the Present Petition on 14/10/2024 under Article 226 and 227 of Indian Constitution, and the case is pending before the Registrar for the Compliance of Office objection before this Hon'ble Court.

¶47

That the Petitioner does not wish to proceed with the present matter and request this Honourable Court permit the withdrawal of the Petition with Liberty, to file a fresh in case of any future exigencies.

¶48

That this application is made in the interest of Justice and without Prejudice to any other rights and remedies available under law."

¶49

In the light of the afore, the petition stands

¶50

dismissed as withdrawn.

¶51

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

P K Chakkaravarthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P K Chakkaravarthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kalidasa Kurubara Janagada Kshemabhivruddi Sanga R Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Smt. Obbamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Hardik Medi Tech Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt G L Sudha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt M R Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh G P Vs Union of India