Karnataka HC Declines Builder’s Challenge To ₹52.47 Lakh Homebuyer Refund Attachment, Cites RERA Appeal Remedy

Respondent No. 1 complained to the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) about the non-completion of the “Max Madhura” project.

RERA allowed the complaint on 30 January 2023 and directed repayment.

After the petitioner failed to comply, the Special Tahsildar issued an attachment order on 22 January 2024 to recover ₹52,47,412.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227, contending that acquisition proceedings had prevented completion of the project, and sought liberty to appeal the RERA order.

Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 provides a statutory appellate remedy against an order of the Authority.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the High Court may decline to entertain a writ petition; a consequential recovery or attachment order cannot be examined independently on grounds challenging the substantive order on which it is based.

The Court also stated that the petitioner could ask the Appellate Tribunal to exclude the time spent prosecuting the writ petition when computing limitation, with that plea to be considered in accordance with law, including the Limitation Act, 1963.

The attachment order was issued to enforce the RERA order and was therefore consequential to it.

Because the petitioner had not appealed the underlying order under Section 44, the Court held that the attachment could not be considered independently on grounds directed at that order.

Given the available statutory appeal and the petitioner’s request for liberty to pursue it, the Court declined to examine the merits of the writ petition.

The Court did not decide the petitioner’s contention concerning project-related acquisition proceedings or the asserted pre-deposit requirement for an appeal.

The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the 30 January 2023 RERA order before the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 44, subject to applicable statutory requirements.

The petitioner may seek exclusion of the period spent in the writ proceedings for limitation purposes; the Tribunal must consider any such plea in accordance with law.

All contentions were left open, and the Tribunal was directed to consider any appeal independently.