Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 04.11.2026
Karnataka HC Sends Developer to RERA Appellate Tribunal Over Refund Dispute
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 8800860662 and email id amitnaren@outlook.com .
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a developerβs writ petition challenging a RERA refund order, holding that the dispute must be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Background of the dispute
The case arose from an agreement dated 14 June 2012 for the purchase of residential Site No. C68 in the M/s Asset Habitat project in Mysore. The agreed sale price was Rs.21.60 lakh.
According to the record, the purchaser and her husband initially paid Rs.7 lakh, which was acknowledged by the developer. They later paid further amounts, bringing the amount claimed before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) to Rs.12.40 lakh.
The purchaser alleged that the project was not completed and that the site had not been conveyed even by 2018. After repeated reminders did not resolve the issue, she filed a complaint before KRERA in 2020 seeking a refund, interest and compensation.
RERA proceedings and refund direction
KRERA initially passed an order on 22 May 2020 after the developer did not participate in the proceedings. It directed refund of Rs.12.40 lakh, with interest at 9% per annum up to 30 April 2017 and thereafter at 2% above the State Bank of Indiaβs MCLR until payment.
The developer subsequently sought to set aside that order, contending that notice had not been properly served. KRERA allowed that application on 15 December 2020 and restored the complaint for fresh consideration.
The matter was then heard over multiple dates between 2021 and 2023. The developer was allowed to place final written submissions on record. KRERA ultimately passed its fresh order on 24 August 2023, which became the subject of the High Court challenge.
Why the High Court declined to examine the merits
The developer approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the RERA order violated principles of natural justice and that the appellate tribunal was not functioning when the writ petition was filed.
The Court rejected both grounds:
- Functional appellate remedy: The Court noted that the RERA Appellate Tribunal has since been constituted and is functioning. The earlier difficulty concerning the tribunalβs availability therefore no longer existed.
- Adequate opportunity to be heard: The Court found that the developer had received sufficient opportunity after the earlier ex parte order was recalled. The proceedings remained pending for a substantial period, hearings were held, and the developer filed additional objections and written submissions before the matter was decided.
- RERA jurisdiction upheld: The Court held that KRERA had jurisdiction to decide the purchaserβs complaint because it concerned alleged non-compliance with the sale agreement.
The Court reiterated that a writ petition is ordinarily not entertained when a statutory appeal is available, unless there is a fundamental-rights issue, a genuine breach of natural justice, a complete lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the validity of legislation. It found that none of these exceptions applied.
Courtβs decision
Justice T.P. Vivekananda dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. Importantly, the dismissal was not a ruling on the underlying merits of the refund dispute.
The Court preserved the developerβs right to file a statutory appeal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. It also clarified that the developer may seek exclusion, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, of the time spent pursuing the matter before the High Court from 2 January 2024.
All factual and legal contentions of both sides have been left open for consideration by the appellate authority, which has been directed to assess any appeal independently and without being influenced by the High Courtβs observations.
Key legal takeaway
The ruling reinforces that parties challenging RERA orders should generally use the appeal mechanism provided by the RERA Act. A writ petition cannot ordinarily replace that remedy merely because a party disputes the decision on merits; a demonstrable jurisdictional defect or real denial of a fair hearing is required before the High Court will intervene directly.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Karnataka High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply