Mr.Amarjeet Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE, BLOCK UNIT BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶26

M/S. HOSKOTE NEO HOMES LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS/AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 110/37, SOLITAIRE BUILDING SERVICE ROAD, OUTER RING ROAD, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037 (REG. UNDER REAL ESTATE REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2016)

¶27

&RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. SIDARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI.RAJASHEKAR K. ADVOCATE FOR R-3; NOTICE TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.24.11.2025)

¶29

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 IN NO. RERA/REVENUE/1193/2025-26 AND RECOVERY CERTIFICATE DATED 11.07.2025 IN NO.RERA/REVENUE/1193/2025-26 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B RESPECTIVELY, ETC.

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:48470 WP No. 30524 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶37

notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri. Rajashekar K., learned counsel accepts notice to respondent No. 3. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with, since there is no particular contention that respondent No.4 can take up in the present proceedings.

¶38

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶39

"1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondent No. 2 to No. implement the order dated 11.07.2025 in RERA/Revenue/1193/2025-26 and Recovery Certificate dated 11.07.2025 in No. RERA/Revenue/1193/2025-26 passed by the Respondent No.3 in favour of the Petitioners vide ANNEXURE - A & B respectively.

¶40

2. Issue any other Writ or Order or direction that deems fit to grant in circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and Equity."

¶41

The grievance of the petitioners is that the Recovery Certificate issued by the respondent No.3/RERA, under Section 40 (1) of the Karnataka Real Estate

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48470 WP No. 30524 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'RERA' for short), has not been implemented by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the amounts not recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶45

This Court, in several matters has held that, whenever a Recovery Certificate is issued under Section 40 of the RERA, it is required for the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and/or the Tahsildar to implement the said order and recover the money by way of arrears of land revenue, within a reasonable period of time.

¶46

According to the petitioners, no action has been taken in spite of the said order.

¶47

As such, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48470 WP No. 30524 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(ii) A Mandamus is issued to the respondent

¶53

Nos.1 and 2 to immediately comply with the order dated 11.07.2025 passed under Section 40 (1) of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation

¶54

and Development) Act, 2016, at Annexure A in No.RERA/Revenue/1193/2025-26 and recover the amount mentioned therein as arrears of land

¶55

revenue, within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶56

(iii) The petitioners are permitted to furnish a list of movable and immovable properties owned by respondent No.4, to respondent Nos.1 and 2, along with supporting documents, which shall be acted upon by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶57

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶58

BMV*

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Mr.Amarjeet Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Amarjeet Kumar v. 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 Babu Shunmugam Vs Sri K a Murthy

Sri. Ambareshappa Vs Sri Prakash Gangaram

Rekha Biswas Vs Siddharth Salian

Hamstede Living Private Limited, Vs Hiren Wahen Buildtech

For Your Resque Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Balakrishna G Vs the Sub Registrar