- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.21465 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. ELEGANT BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.99/1, RAMARAO LAYOUT, KATRIGUPPE, B.S.K 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. B. NARASIMHULU NAIDU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. H.R. VENKATESH S/O SRI. H.K RAMANNA, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESING AT FLAT NO.FF2, ELEGANT SHINE, 12/72, 4TH CROSS, SBM COLONY, BSK 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED IN C. C. No. 89/2008 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) (ANNEXURE-K) AND DECLARE IT TO BE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been instituted impugning the order dated 30.07.2021 passed in C.C.No.89/2008 by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the order dated 03.10.2024 passed in First Appeal No.881/2021 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Annexures-K and L) respectively. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that respondent had booked a flat in the project of the petitioner. An agreement of sale dated 21.03.2007 was executed for the said project and building plan was sanctioned on 28.06.2006 by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'the BBMP'). The petitioner was to construct 9 flats on the plot in question. Water supply connection was also sanctioned by Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewage Board (for short 'the BWSSB') on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 21.04.2007 and the electricity department issued an inspection report on 30.08.2008. On 14.08.2008, after taking possession of the flat in question, the respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner seeking details of the accounts, completion certificate and raised various grievances primarily in respect of the lift installed, parking slots and the collection of excess amount from the flat owners. 3. When the respondent did not hear anything from the petitioner, she along with other flat owners filed a C.C.Nos.88/2008, 89/2008 and 90/2008 before the State Commission praying for several reliefs. The main contention of the respondent was that the petitioner had collected an excess amount of Rs.17.59 lakhs from each flat owners and that they prayed for return of the same with interest @15% per annum. 4. The State Commission, however dismissed, the complaints on 31.01.2008 and directed the respondent to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 approach the appropriate Civil Court for recovery of money. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the State Commission, the respondent along with other flat owners filed First Appeal Nos.526 to 528/2008 before the National Commission and the National Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The State Commission, vide order dated 20.10.2010 allowed the complaints and directed the petitioner herein to refund a sum of Rs.17.59 lakhs to the complainant in C.C.No.89/2008. It was also directed that in case of demolition of the unauthorized structure for violation of the sanction plan, the petitioner should rebuild the same as per the approved plan at its cost. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.10.2010, the complainants filed appeals in F.A.Nos.402-404/2010 and the petitioner herein (builder) and the flat owners/buyers filed appeals in F.A.Nos.439-441/2010 before the National Commission. F.A.Nos.439-441/2010 were allowed vide order dated 28.07.2016 and F.A.Nos.402 to 404/2010 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 were dismissed as infructuous on the same date. The State Commission's order dated 20.10.2010 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the State Commission. 5. Miscellaneous Application No.874/2011 dated 04.11.2011 was filed seeking restoration of the appeal in F.A.No.402/2010 which was dismissed by the National Commission. The final order passed by the State Commission in C.C.No.88/2008 as well as in C.C.Nos.89/2008 and 90/2008 on 30.07.2021 was again appealed by the builder by filing F.A.No.881/2021. 6. The petitioner had constructed the flats in violation of the sanctioned building plan. The basement, which was intended for the purpose of car parking, had two bedrooms unit. There was no certificate with regard to the rainwater harvesting and the petitioner had exceeded the built-up area to an extent of 171%. Therefore, no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 occupancy certificate was issued from the concerned Municipal Corporation. 7. The State Commission, in its order dated 30.07.2021, directed the petitioner-builder to refund a sum of Rs.18.69 lakhs, 17.59 lakhs and 21.925 lakhs to the complainants in C.C.Nos.88/2008, 89/2008 and 90/2008 respectively. It was further directed that in case of demolition of unauthorized construction by the BBMP for violation of the approved building plan, the petitioner should rebuild the same as per the approved plan at its own cost. The petitioner was also directed to reserve and earmark proper car parking slots as agreed under the agreement of sale, construction agreement and sale deed in favour of each of the complainants. Further direction was given to the petitioner to secure occupancy certificate and completion certificate and handover the same to the complainants. Direction was also given to rectify the defects with respect to the lift, sewage connection, BESCOM connection and to obtain safety certificate and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 rainwater harvesting certificate from the concerned authorities and these documents were directed to be handed over to the complainants along with mother deeds. The complaints were allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. 8. In the first appeals filed before the National Commission, the National Commission has considered the contention of the petitioner - builder that the amount of Rs.46.69 lakhs was not only in respect of the construction, but it was also in respect of the undivided share of the land and held that the petitioner was not able to produce any document of proof and that the said amount was collected in respect of some valid agreement entered into between the parties or the respondents had agreed for such an amount. 9. Paragraph 12 of the judgment passed by the National Commission reads as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 "It is apparent from the foregoing that the opposite party appellant herein entered into an Agreement of Sale with the respondent for a sum of Rs.23.00 lakhs but collected Rs.46.69 lakhs towards the flats in question. The appellant has not been able to bring on record any document as per which an additional amount had been agreed upon between the parties towards the cost of the flat as claimed by it. Therefore, the sale agreement dated 30.07.2007 has to be considered as the basis for the agreed sale consideration between the parties. It is not denied by the appellant that there have been violations with regard to the construction in the basement which was ear marked as space for car parking, faulty operation of the lift, violation of the building plan as approved by the BBMP (local municipal corporation) and other short comings such as non-availability of occupation certificate, rain water harvesting arrangements and individual electricity connections. In view of these admissions, deficiency in service alleged by the respondents has been rightly upheld by the State Commission." 10. In view of the above, keeping in view that we are exercising only revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and we are not a fact finding - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9602-DB WP No. 21465 of 2025 Court, when the two forums below have concurrently held that the respondents had never agreed for payment of Rs.46.69 lakhs as sale consideration for flat of Rs.23.00 lakhs and the petitioner had collected more money than which was agreed to, at this stage, we do not think that we can reconsider the evidence or the documents. 11. As we do not find any error of law or jurisdiction by the forums below, we decline to interfere with the impugned orders. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3