M/S UNISHIRE PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6475 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S UNISHIRE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND
HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT
NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 020.
PRESENTLY AT NO.42, CASTLE STREET,
ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 025.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SRI PRATIK K MEHTA.
2. MR. KIRTI MEHTA,
S/O KANTILAL MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3. MR. PRATIK K. MEHTA,
S/O. OF MR. KIRTI MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4.
MR. VINAY K. MEHTA,
S/O. MR. KIRTI K. MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT
NO. 36, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
NEHRU NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 020.
Digitally signed
by CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
CURRENT ADDRESS:
NO.42, CASTLE STREET,
ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 025.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND COMMERCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560064.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
YELAHANKA, BANBALRE-560064.
4. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK,
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND,
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 027,
REP. BY CHAIRMAN.
5. MR. SHIVKUMAR CHAUDHARY,
S/O MR. CHIRANJILAL D. CHAUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
6. MR. PRIYANK S. CHAUDHARY,
S/O MR. SHIVKUMAR CHAUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
NO. 5 & 6 ARE R/AT FLAT 8-A,
SEKSARIA BUILDING, F-ROAD,
MUMBAI CITY-400 020.
ADDRESS TO SERVICE ALL NOTICES
FLAT GC, SCOTSDALE APARTMENTS,
HAINES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI GOWTHAM DEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI G UDHAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.01.2025 BEARING NO.
MSC(RE)l(RERA)CR/29/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE I.E R-3 HEREIN VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing
the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by respondent
No.3-Tahsildar, vide Annexure-A.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
2. Heard Sri. G. S. Venkat Subba Rao, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. Aditya
Diwakara, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. Gowthamdev
C. Ullal, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4 and Sri. G. Udhayakumar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
3. Sri. G. S. Venkat Subba Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, contended that the
impugned order of attachment and sale of the entire
project by the respondent-authorities is contrary to
law. He further submitted that there is no basis for
issuing the order of attachment at Annexure-A by
respondent No.3 and, accordingly, sought interference
of this Court.
4. Per contra, Sri. G. Udhayakumar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, submitted that
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
pursuant to the order of attachment at Annexure-A,
the respondent-authorities conducted a spot
inspection and the said order of attachment has been
executed on 21.03.2025. Thereafter, respondent No.3
addressed a letter dated 16.03.2026 to the Assistant
Revenue Officer, Greater Bengaluru Authority,
Byatarayanapura Ward, Bengaluru, requesting to
conduct an auction in respect of the flats mentioned in
the sale agreement. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5,
referring to the letter dated 19.09.2025, that the
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar had addressed a letter to
respondent No.3 requesting him to conduct an auction
in respect of the subject property.
5. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order of
attachment has already been acted upon by
respondent No.3 and that the petitioners had
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
challenged the final order passed by respondent No.4
in appeal, which came to be dismissed on 23.08.2025,
and the same has attained finality. Therefore, he
sought dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned Additional
Government Advocate, sought to justify the order
passed by respondent No.3-Tahsildar.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is
forthcoming that respondent No.2 has passed an order
dated 10.04.2024 pursuant to the letter addressed by
respondent No.4 dated 03.02.2024, as the petitioners
herein had failed to pay the arrears due to respondent
Nos.5 and 6.
8. It is also to be noted that the impugned order of
attachment was passed on 16.01.2025 and,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
thereafter, respondent No.3 executed the notice and
took possession of the subject land on 21.03.2025.
Further, respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the
authorities of the Greater Bengaluru Authority seeking
further action for auctioning the flats, as is evident
from the letter dated 16.03.2026 produced by learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.
9. In that view of the matter, as the petitioners
herein have not produced any material as to challenge
the order passed by respondent No.4 and as the said
order has attained finality the finality on 23.08.2025
as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.5 and 6, that the appeal filed by the
petitioners challenging the original order passed by
respondent No.4, the petitioners cannot, at this stage,
challenge the consequential order of attachment, as
bad in law.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57710
WP No. 6475 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123372025
10. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference
is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ
dismissed
petition stands .
11. However, it is open for the petitioners to
challenge the order passed by respondent No.4 in
respect of the property in question, if they are
otherwise entitled to do so in law.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3