- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19776 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. ARVIND MEHRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE DR. L.S MEHRA A 302, MANTRI SAROVAR HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR -4 BENGALURU – 560 102. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.AISHWARYA ANANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. MANTRI DWELLING PVT. LTD., (NOW SHORE DWELLINGS PVT., LTD.,) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE AT: MANTRI HOUSE, NO.41 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI JAITHRA J.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO EXECUTE WITHIN THREE WEEKS, THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE, BEARING NO. RERA/KANDAYA/ 7737/2022-23 DATED 25/01/2023 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to execute the recovery certificate so issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('the RERA' for short). 2. Heard Smt. Aishwarya Anant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Rahul Cariyappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Jaithra J. Narayan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner enters into an agreement of sale and pays the cost of construction of the apartment at Rs.1,32,03,418/-. The agreement is entered into on 31.12.2010. On or before 31.03.2014, the third respondent - Developer had an obligation in terms of the agreement to hand over the possession of the property. Five years thereafter, the possession is handed over on 03.12.2019 by way of registration of a sale deed. The petitioner approaches the RERA seeking compensation for delay in delivery of the apartment. The RERA passes an order on 07.10.2022 directing the third respondent - Developer to pay the interest for delay. An order for executing the order dated 07.10.2022 was passed on 02.01.2023 and on 25.01.2023, a recovery certificate is issued directing recovery of an amount of Rs.72,18,293/- along with interest. The petitioner is before this Court alleging that the first respondent has not evinced any interest in recovering the amount. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of MR. ONKAR NATH JAISWAL Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 & Ors.1and MOHAN PULLAIAH & ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors.2 4. The afore-quoted judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, both deal with an identical circumstance. Therefore, a deeper delving into the matter is unnecessary. I deem it appropriate to quote those orders and grant the same relief to the petitioner. 5. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of MR. ONKAR NATH JAISWAL (supra) has held as follows: "2. The petitioner is a home buyer who are aggrieved of the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in executing and implementing the orders passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K- RERA). 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.14093/2024 has considered the similar issue in respect of the very same respondent No.4-Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., Learned counsel seeks for similar orders. 4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to accomplish the implementations of the subject K-RERA orders and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three months, failing which heavy costs personably payable may be levied on 1 WP.No.1589/2025 Disposed on 31.01.2025. 2 WP.No.14093/2024 Disposed on 27.06.2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 an appropriate application being moved by the petitioner." In the case of MOHAN PULLAIAH & ANOTHER (supra) has held as follows: 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the orders passed by The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“RERA”) dated 07.09.2023 followed by Execution orders dated 04.12.2023 pursuant to which the RERA Authority has issued a Revenue Recovery Certificates (for short ‘RRC’) addressed to the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to take further steps in this regard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the aforesaid orders passed by the RERA Authority, Execution orders and the Revenue Recovery Certificates, Jurisdictional Tahasildar is not taking steps pursuant thereto and as such, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naveen Kumar D.T & Others Vs The State of Karnataka & Others – WP.No.1569/2024 dated 22.01.2024 and as such, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in the event respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take necessary steps pursuant to the Revenue Recovery Certificates, directions may be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide an opportunity to respondent No.3 and proceed further in accordance with law. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in Naveen Kumar D.T’s case supra, this Court held as under: “ORDER - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 “The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: "A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ, directing Respondents No.1 and Respondent No.2 to enforce payment of amounts due from Respondent No.3 in accordance with the procedure for recovery provided under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and rules there under, for enforcement of the directions of KRERA Revenue/9591/2022-23, dt- 13/2/2023 issued under Section 40 (1) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 25 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017; B. GRANT such other relief's, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interests of justice and equity" 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Akash Bantia, and the learned HCGP Sri.Kiran Kumar, appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6545/2023 disposed on 30.05.2023, wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: "The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to the longevity of the Execution Process involving implementation of the orders of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA). Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the implementation of those orders cannot be a Five Year Plan as it has to be accomplished in accordance with the intent of Parliament in enacting the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act of 2016. 2. Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents opposes the Petition contending that already the process for implementation is set on initiated and that would take by its very nature some long period and that its accomplishment no assurance can be given as to within what period the same would be done. This is bit difficult to countenance. At least, as a concession to the shortness of human life the matters of this kind should - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 be accomplished on a war footing should the property be available. If no property avails, the question of implementation would not arise. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in part; the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to accomplish the implementation of the subject K-RERA orders and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three months failing which heavy costs personably payable may be levied on an appropriate application being moved by the Petitioner. Now, no costs." 4. The petitioners are also similarly situated home buyers, in their arm, an order passed by RERA of the kind that was considered by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petition (supra). 5. Learned HCGP would submit that three months time was granted therein, but would seek another month at the hands of this Court. 6. The submission is placed on record. 7. The order shall be complied with, within an outer limit of four months. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the aforesaid petition was filed by the writ petitioners therein, who are identically / similarly situated to the present petitioners and directions were issued to the respondents. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the present petition directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take further steps pursuant to the Revenue Recovery Certificates at Annexure – B and proceed further in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall comply with the directions issued in the present order after providing an opportunity in this regard to respondent No.3. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17365 WP No. 19776 of 2023 8. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of." In the light of the issue standing answered by the afore-quoted judgments, the petition deserves to succeed and a mandamus issues to the respondent - State to take further steps pursuant to the revenue recovery certificate and proceed further, in accordance with law and take the issue to its logical conclusion, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While so doing, the third respondent against whom the order is passed shall be heard in the matter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59