Allowed¶69

Smt. Jyothi Ramanath Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/11999/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 11999 of 2022 (GM-RES), HC-KAR, NC: 2026:KHC:33443, decided 03-07-2026 by Justice M.G.S. Kamal. Attachment notice dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure-A) issued by Special Tahsildar under RERA recovery certificate (complaint No.180811/0001131, order dated 28.11.2018) quashed; writ petition allowed after settlement between promoter Nitesh Housing Developers (R6) and allottee Nirvikar Singh (R5) before National Lok Adalat on 25.06.2022; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; RERA Karnataka; RRC recall; no precedents cited; no monetary quantum stated.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned notice/order dated 22.02.2022 bearing M.S.C./RERA/CR/180/2021-22 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.3. ¶69

Smt. Jyothi Ramanath Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33443 WP No. 11999 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11999 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JYOTHI RAMANATH SHETTY W/O RAMANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO. 24, M.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. E. SUHAIL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER (REVENUE) KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶17

THE SPECIAL THASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA GROUND FLOOR, K G ROAD

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:33443 WP No. 11999 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 009.

¶22

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3^RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶23

SRI. NIRVIKAR SINGH MAJOR BY AGE R/AT K407, BRIGADE METROPOLIS GARUDACHARPALYA MAHADEVAPURA

¶24

BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶25

NITESH HOUSING DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NITESH TIMES SQUARE NO.8, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M. NITESH SHETTY.

¶26

B.R SHETTY AND ASSOCIATES (NOW KNOWN AS SUNCE CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.24 M.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. ABHAYRAJ SHETTY.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:33443 WP No. 11999 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. GAUTAM ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5 AND R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. SIDDARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 22.02.2022 BEARING M.S.C./RERA/CR/180/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE R-3 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Petitioner before this Court claims that in furtherance to the order dated 28.11.2018, which was passed in complaint No.180811/0001131 on the file of Lok-Adalat in the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru, directing the respondent-promoter therein who is respondent No.6 herein t o return the amount of the complainant/allottee with interest from respective date of payment thereafter recovery certificate has been forwarded to concerned departments to recover the amount as that of land revenue and pay the same to the allottee. T he Special Tahsildar-respondent No.3 had sought to

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:33443 WP No. 11999 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

attach the property belonging to the petitioner in terms of

¶41

Annexure A.

¶42

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has filed a memo which reads as under:

¶43

"The learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the present writ petition arises out of the execution order passed by Respondent No.4 (RERA) in Comp/No.180811/0001131, where the petitioner's property was attached. It is further submitted that the dispute before RERA has since been amicably settled between respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 25.06.2022 before the Lok Adalat, and therefore the present writ petition no longer survives for consideration and is rendered infructuous. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 has furnished a copy of the Joint Memo recording the settlement before the Lok Adalat of the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru."

¶44

3. Along with the memo, a copy of joint memo is also filed signed by complainant- Sri.Nirvikar Kumar Singh and his

¶45

counsel. The joint memo reads as under:

¶46

"The above named complainant has filed the above complaint seeking certain reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

¶47

1. The learned AO after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint by order dated 28.11.2018 directed the respondent/promoter to return the amount of the complainant / allottee with interest from respective date of payment there after recovery certificate has been forwarded to concerned departments to recover the amount as that of land revenue and pay the same to the allottee.

¶48

2. At this stage parties after due deliberation of the subject matter of the complaint have got their dispute settled as under:

¶49

a) During the pendency of the recovery proceedings project has been substantially completed. Therefore the promoter has agreed to deliver the possession of the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:33443 WP No. 11999 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

flat allotted to the complainant by executing registered sale deed in his favor within 10 days from today.

¶54

b) The developer considering delay on his part in delivering the possession of the flat to the allottee, has voluntarily agreed to adjust the delay compensation payable by them to the allottee against the balance sale consideration payable by the allottee.

¶55

c) Promoter has agreed to complete all pending works as stipulated in the agreement and secure OC (Occupancy Certificate) within 8 (eight) months from today and furnish a copy of said OC to the complainant.

¶56

d) Promoter has no objection for the complainant to occupy the flat immediately after the execution of sale deed and enjoy the flat.

¶57

e) The allottee voluntarily agreed for the adjustment of delay compensation payable to him by the developer against balance sale consideration payable by him to the developer.

¶58

f) The allottee agreed to take registered sale deed from the developer by paying registration fee, stamp duty and other miscellaneous expenses payable at the time of registration.

¶59

3. Except the above dispute and claim between the parties there is no any other claim/dispute between the parties. If there is any claim/dispute between the parties pending before any court or forum same shall be stand closed as settled by either of the parties to the said dispute by filing a memo in such case/dispute.

¶60

4. Parties have entered into the settlement out of their free will and consent.

¶61

5. Parties have agreed for recording compromise in National Lok Adalat held on 25.06.2022.

¶62

6. In view of the parties entering into this settlement the order passed by RERA issuing RRC and forwarding it to the concerned DC is hereby ordered to be recalled after recording this compromise in the National Lok Adalat and concerned officer of RERA shall communicate to the concerned DC for necessary action thereon."

¶63

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:33443 WP No. 11999 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

4. That in the light of said order dated 28.11.2018, having

¶67

been complied with in terms of joint memo referred to above, and matter having been closed, it is urged that the attachment order at Annexure-A which emanates from the said order dated 28.11.2018 be quashed.

¶68

5. Since there is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid events, and in the light of claim made by said Sri.Nirvikar Kumar Singh also having been satisfied, Petition is allowed.

¶69

Impugned order dated 22.02.2022 at Annexure A is quashed.

¶70

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶71

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Jyothi Ramanath Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyothi Ramanath Shetty 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

B M Mumtaz Ali Vs Union of India

Smt Aswathamma Vs Smt Kavitha

Mr. S.P Muniraju Vs M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Sri. Niranjan Babu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Pakirappa Bettagiri Vs State of Karnataka

Shivanna K N Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inquiry Officer