Right To Property | Conditions Not Imposed While Approving Building Plan Can't Be Added Later For Occupancy Certificate: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that municipal authorities cannot impose the post-facto condition of executing a Relinquishment Deed for land without consideration, as a prerequisite for granting an Occupancy Certificate (OC), especially when such a condition was not imposed at the time of sanctioning the building license. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290]The single judge bench of Justice B.M....
The Karnataka High Court has held that municipal authorities cannot impose the post-facto condition of executing a Relinquishment Deed for land without consideration, as a prerequisite for granting an Occupancy Certificate (OC), especially when such a condition was not imposed at the time of sanctioning the building license. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290]
The single judge bench of Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad has allowed a plea filed by property owners who were asked by the Town Planning Authorities to relinquish over 656 square meters of land for road widening, without assuring any compensation, to secure the Occupancy Certificate for his completed building.
“…The petitioners' request for an Occupancy Certificate should be examined based on the conditions upon which the sanction is granted and the construction is completed. Indisputably, the relinquishment was not insisted upon while granting the building license and sanctioned plan, and this relinquishment is not insisted upon even when the Commencement Certificate is issued. Post-facto conditions cannot be insisted upon, and there must be a specific provision permitting the same if such conditions are to be sustained….”, the court laid down in the order.
The court noted as per Section 226 of the GBA Governance Act [Relinquishment of area reserved for road] 'permitting such insistence at the time of issuing the Occupancy Certificate for a building constructed in terms of the sanction/approval under the BBMP Act 'was absent.
“…Post facto conditions cannot be insisted upon, and there must be a specific provision permitting the same if such conditions are to be sustained”, the court said in the order, relying on relevant provisions in BBMP Act and GBG Act.
For context, the petitioners owned a property measuring 2,648.81 square meters in Doddakannalli Village in Bellandur. They were issued a sanctioned Building Plan and Building License on February 5, 2024, along with a Commencement Certificate on February 15, 2025, for constructing a basement and four floors, in accordance with the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act, 2020.
After the construction was completed, when the petitioners applied for OC, the Assistant Director of Town Planning (Respondent No. 5) issued an endorsement in July 2026.
The aforesaid endorsement stated that since the property abutted a 24-meter road, the road was should be widened to 45 meters under the Revised Master Plan of 2015. The authority hence allegedly told the petitioner that they should execute a deed of relinquishment for the land required for such road widening free of cost, before the OC could be granted.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court challenging such a post facto condition which was non existent at the time of sanctioning the license or granting the commencement certificate.
The Court noted that neither the BBMP Act (under which the plan was sanctioned) nor the Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) Act, 2024, contained any specific provision allowing the authorities to demand a Relinquishment Deed for road widening as a condition for sanctioning a new building or issuing an OC.
The Court invoked Article 300A of the Constitution. It observed that authorities cannot create such conditions without the backing of specific statutory law.
“…A person cannot be denied the right to property save by the Authority of law; a right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. As such, the impugned Endorsement dated 01.07.2026 [Annexure - N] cannot be sustained and there must be directions to the fifth respondent to communicate to the petitioners the legal demand/levy payable for issuing an Occupancy Certificate beyond what is already remitted by them for the Occupancy Certificate…”, the court noted further while quashing the impugned notification from July.
The Court has hence directed the authorities to issue the Occupancy Certificate to the petitioners without insisting upon the Relinquishment Deed, provided that the Town Planning Authority reverifies the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan.
The authority shall complete the process of issuing the OC or assign reasons for refusing I within eight weeks from the receipt of the court order, the court added.
While granting the aforesaid reliefs, the Court clarified that this order would not create any equity in favour of the petitioners, regarding future acquisition proceedings for widening the road in accordance with law.
Case Title: Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20839 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
For the Petitioners: Sri Angad Kamath, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 (State of Karnataka): Sri Bopanna Belliappa, Additional Government Advocate (AGA)
For Respondents Other Respondents (Greater Bengaluru Authority & Bengaluru East City Corporation): Sri Pawan Kumar, Advocate