Golden Gate Properties Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 GOLDEN PANORAMA PROJECT HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT: GOLDEN HOUSE NO. 820 80 FEET ROAD, 8^TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. SRINIVAS N., SENIOR LEGAL MANAGER.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶16

THE REAL ESTATE CONTROL AUTHORITY KARNATAKA NO. 1/14 2^ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILLI BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3^RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THE REAL ESTATE CONTROL AUTHORITY,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:6521 WP No. 16324 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

KARNATAKA NO. 1/14 2^ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILLI BLOCK UNITY BUILDING CSI COMPOUND 3^RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶23

SRI APRAMEYA NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SHANKARNARAYAN SF-02, PRAKRUTHI SUNRIDGE APARATMENT, 3^RD MAIN, KATHARIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, SRINIVASANAGAR, BANASHANKARI, 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶24

SRI HARISH JAIN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO 8/1119, ADARSH NAGAR MODINAGAR UTTARPRADESH GHAZIABAD - 201 204.

¶25

SRI NIKHILESH MEHTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS INFINERA INDIA PVT LTD., R/AT LEVEL 4, PRESTIGE SOLITTAIRE NO 6 BRUNTAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶26

SRI ABHISHEK DUTT MEHTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2/5 FIELD MARSHALL CARRIAPPA COLONY CUBBON ROAD, NEAR MANIPAL CENTRE BANGALORE - 560 042.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6521 WP No. 16324 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

SRI PUPPALA JAYASIMHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.03, 1^ST FLOOR SANJEEV REDDY STREET, 3^RD CROSS SUBBAYANAPALYA NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT M S NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 033.

¶30

SRI KAUTILYA VATS AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 180, DWARIKAPURI UTTAR PRADESH, MUZAFFARNAGAR - 251 001.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R4)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING ORDERS PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (R-3) THE REAL ESTATE CONTROL AUTHORITY KARNATKAA IN COMPLIANT NO.CMP/181113/0001627 DATED 06.03.2019, CMP/181218/ 0001773 DATED.30.04.2019, CMP/190123/0001934 DATED 23.4.2019, CMP/181111/0001622 DATED.08.02.2019 CMP/ 180913/0001268 DATED.18.12.2018, CMP/180925/0001320 DATED.03.01.2019 AT ANNEXURE-A, A1 TO A5 AND CONSEQUENT ATTACHMENT MAHAZAR DRAWN BY THE R-4 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK DATED 04.07.2022 AT ANNEXURE-B RESPECTIVELY.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:6521 WP No. 16324 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs;

¶41

"8.1. Call for records pertaining orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (3rd Respondent), The Real Estate Control Authority, Karnataka in Complaint No. CMP/181113/0001627 dated 06.03.2019, CMP/181218/0001773 dated 30.04.2019, CMP/190123/0001934 dated 23.04.2019, CMP/181111/0001622 dated 08.02.2019, CMP/180913/0001268 dated 18.12.2018, CMP/180925/0001320 dated 03.01.2019 at Annexures-A, A1 to A5 and consequent Attachment Mahazar drawn by the Fourth Respondent Special Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk dated 04.07.2022 at Annexure-B, respectively and

¶42

8.2. Issue a writ or order or any directions including writ in the nature of certiorari and to Quash the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (3rd Respondent), The Real Estate Control Authority, Karnataka in Complaint No. CMP/181113/0001627 dated 06.03.2019, CMP/181218/0001773 dated 30.04.2019, CMP/190123/0001934 dated 23.04.2019, CMP/181111/0001622 dated 08.02.2019, CMP/180913/0001268 dated 18.12.2018, CMP/180925/0001320 dated 03.01.2019 at Annexures-A, A1 to A5.

¶43

8.3. Issue a writ or order or any directions including writ in the nature of certiorari and to Quash the Mahazar drawn by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South (4th Respondent) dated 04.07.2022 at Annexure-B, and also to quash all actions initiated in pursuant thereof initiated by the Respondents against the petitioner.

¶44

8.4. Issue a writ or order or any directions including in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to remove lock put to schedule premises and hand over keys seized as shown in the Mahazar dated 04.07.2022 at Annexure-B as the same is illegal, arbitrary, and perverse, and also to quash all actions initiated in pursuant thereof initiated by the Respondents against these petitioners.

¶45

8.5. Grant any other such reliefs/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶46

Grievance of the petitioner is that though the Real

¶47

Estate Control Authority- Karnataka (for brevity 'RERA') by its orders passed in various complaints, produced at Annexures-A,

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:6521 WP No. 16324 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

A1 to A5 had issued directions for refund of the amounts paid by the complainants thereunder together with simple interest and refund of amount collected towards goods and service taxes and the said orders were passed only in respect of 6 apartments. However, the respondent No.4/Tahsildar has attached, seized and locked 205 apartments by the impugned mahazar produced at Annexure-B, which is unsustainable and illegal being highly disproportionate.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further

¶53

submits that against the six orders which is the subject matter of documents produced at Annexures-A, A1 to A5, petitioner

¶54

has already settled the claims of about three complainants, leaving only remaining three claims to be satisfied. He submits, this being the factual aspect of the matter, the respondent No.4/Tahsildar had no authority or jurisdiction to seize and lock as many as 205 apartments, as found in the mahazar at Annexure-B. He further submits that if direction is issued to the respondent No.4/Tahsildar to release those apartments which are not subject matter of the orders passed by the RERA as found in Annexures-A, A1 to A5, purpose of the petition would

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:6521 WP No. 16324 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

be served. He further submits that attachment order can continue in respect of the six apartments which is the subject matter of the orders at Annexures-A, A1 to A5. He further drawing attention of this Court to mahazar produced at Annexure-B, more particularly, to page No.47 of the writ petition submit that a laptop of Lenova B490, Model No. 20207 which was recovered from the apartment, may also be directed to be released as the same belongs to the petitioner.

¶59

Learned AGA in response submits that apart from the orders which is the subject matter to the present petition, there appears to be similar order passed by the RERA. Respondent No.4/Tahsildar taking into consideration the total amount payable in terms of the Orders perhaps has proceeded to seize and lock 205 apartments. However, she submits if petitioner makes a representation to the respondent No.4 /Tahsildar giving details of the orders passed and the amount outstanding as on this date and the value of the apartments which are seized, appropriate orders would be passed.

¶60

Submission is placed on record.

¶61

Heard. Perused the records.

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:6521 WP No. 16324 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

In terms of the RERA Act any amount payable and

¶66

directed to be recovered shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue as provided under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Chapter XIV of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides a manner and method for recovery of revenue. Section 173 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 contemplates as far as practical sale of property to be proportionate to the amount of land revenue. In the instant case, there is clear case of excessiveness in attaching and seizing the properties as noted above.

¶67

Since the petitioner is not questioning the validity or otherwise of the orders passed by the RERA, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. Writ petition is disposed of .

¶70

ii. Petitioner shall make a representation to respondent No.4/Tahsildar, giving details or particulars of the orders passed by the RERA within 15 days from the

¶71

date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall also furnish the names of the

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:6521 WP No. 16324 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

apartment owners, number of the apartments, amount due and payable in terms of the orders, as on this day, calculating the interest as directed by the RERA.

¶76

iii. The respondent No.4/Tahsildar after assessing the value of the apartment which are subject matter of those orders, proceed to draw fresh mahazar covering the apartments to the value of the amount

¶77

payable by the petitioner and if he finds the apartments which are already seized by him are in excess of value payable under the orders, he shall forthwith release the same.

¶78

iv. The respondent No.4/Tahsildar shall also release the laptop referred to above, subject to petitioner furnishing and satisfying their identity.

¶79

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2026 does

¶80

not survive for consideration.

¶81

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

¶82

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Golden Gate Properties Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golden Gate Properties Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt. Archana. D. Nayak Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Smt. K. Nagarathnamma Vs the Advocate General

Sri. Venkateshwara Rice Tech Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Urban District Athletic Association ( Budaa) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Madesha Vs the Commissioner

The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs Sri. K Chinayamurthy