Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy v. The State of Karnataka

- 1e-NC:(2026:KHC:35039( WP(No.(20839(of(2026( ,HC-KAR( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA THDATEDATHISATHEA10 ADAYAOFAJULY,A2026A BEFOREA THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA WRITAPETITIONANO.A20839AOFA2026A(LB-BMP)A BETWEEN:A

¶1SRI-K-N-VENUGOPAL-@-VENUGOPALA-REDDY S/O-NANJUNDA-REDDY, AGED-ABOUT-57-YEARS, RESIDING-AT-NO.24/130/115, DODDAKANNALLI,-SARJAPURA-ROAD,-BENGALURU-560-035.

¶2SRI-K.N.-SRINIVAS, 5/0-NANJUNDA-REDDY AGED-ABOUT-53-YEARS, RESIDING-AT-NO.130/16, SARJAPURA-ROAD, DODDAKANNALLI, BENGALURU-560-035. …PETITIONERS-Digitally (BY-SRI.-ANGAD-KAMATH,-ADVOCATE)- signedtiby AND:AVANAMALA N Location: 1. THE-STATE-OF-KARNATAKA HIGH REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-PRINCIPAL-SECRETARY, COURT0OF URBAN-DEVELOPMENT-DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA VIDHANA-SOUDHA, DR.-B.R.-AMBEDKAR-VEEDHI, BENGALURU---560-001.

¶2THE-GREATER-BENGALURU-AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-CHIEF-COMMISSIONER,-GBA MAIN-OFFICE, HUDSON-CIRCLE,-N.R.-SQUARE, BENGALURU,-KARNATAKA-560002 e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:35039( WP(No.(20839(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

3.-THE-BENGALURU-EAST-CITY-CORPORATION,-REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-COMMISSIONER,--RHB-COLONY,-WHITEFIELD-MAIN-ROAD,-MAHADEVAPURA,-BENGALURU,-KARNATAKA-560048.--

4.-THE-DEPUTY-DIRECTOR,-TOWN-PLANNING.-BENGALURU-EAST-CITY-CORPORATION,-MAHADEVAPURA-ZONE,--HMT-MAIN-ROAD,-R.H.B.-COLONY,-MAHADEVAPURA,-BENGALURU-560-048.--

5.-THE-ASSISTANT-DIRECTOR,-TOWN-PLANNING,-BENGALURU-EAST-CITY-CORPORATION,-MAHADEVAPURA-ZONE-1,--HMT-MAIN-ROAD,-R.H.B.-COLONY,-MAHADEVAPURA,--BENGALURU-560-048.--

6.-THE-ASSISTANT-EXECUTIVE-ENGINEER,-TDR-AND-LAND-ACQUISITION,-BENGALURU-EAST-CITY-CORPORATION,-RESIDENCY-ROAD,--SHANTHALA-NAGAR,-ASHOK-NAGAR,-BENGALURU,--KARNATAKA---560001--

7.-THE-BANGALORE-ELECTRICITY-SUPPLY-COMPANY-LIMITED-(BESCOM),-REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-MANAGING-DIRECTOR,--K.R.-CIRCLE,-BENGALURU---560-001.-…RESPONDENTS-(BY-SRI.-BOPANNA-BELLIAPPA,-AGA-FOR-R-1;--------SRI.-PAWAN-KUMAR,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R-2,-3,-4,---------5-&-6)---THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLE-226-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-AND-PRAYING-TO-A.-ISSUE-A-WRIT-OF-CERTIORARI-OR-ANY-OTHER-APPROPRIATE-WRIT,-ORDER-OR-DIRECTION-QUASHING-THE-e -e3e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:35039( WP(No.(20839(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( ENDORSEMENT-DATED-01.07.2026-BEARING-NO.-BPNPCNR)V-1)/PR/132/26-27-(ANNEXURE-N)-ISSUED-BY-THE-RESPONDENT-NO.5,-INSOFAR-AS-IT-REQUIRES-THE-PETITIONERS-TO-RELINQUISH-656.46-SQ-M-FREE-OF-COST-BY-WAY-OF-A-RELINQUISHMENT-DEED-AS-A-CONDITION-PRECEDENT-TO-THE-GRANT-OF-THE-OCCUPANCY-CERTIFICATE-B.-ISSUE-A-WRIT-IN-THE-NATURE-OF-A-DECLARATION-THAT-THE-EXACTION-OF-LAND-FREE-OF-COST-AS-A-CONDITION-PRECEDENT-TO-THE-GRANT-OF-AN-OCCUPANCY-CERTIFICATE,-IN-RESPECT-OF-A-BUILDING-CONSTRUCTED-IN-CONFORMITY-WITH-THE-SANCTIONED-PLAN,-IS-WITHOUT-AUTHORITY-OF-LAW,-ULTRA-VIRES-SECTIONS-226-AND-241-OF-THE-GREATER-BENGALURU-GOVERNANCE-ACT,-2024,-AND-VIOLATIVE-OF-ARTICLE-300A-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-C.-ISSUE-A-WRIT-OF-MANDAMUS-OR-OTHER-APPROPRIATE-DIRECTION-DIRECTING-THE-RESPONDENTS-TO-CONSIDER-AND-DISPOSE-OF-THE-PETITIONERS-OCCUPANCY-CERTIFICATE-APPLICATION-NO.-PRJ/11300/23-24(OC)-PRODUCED-AS-ANNEURE-K-IN-ACCORDANCE-WITH-SECTION-241-OF-THE-SAID-ACT,-SOLELY-ON-THE-BASIS-OF-THE-BUILDINGS-CONFORMITY-WITH-THE-SANCTIONED-PLAN-AND-THE-PETITIONERS-COMPLIANCE-WITH-GENUINE-STATUTORY-REQUIREMENTS,-WITHOUT-INSISTING-UPON-THE-RELINQUISHMENT-DEED,-WITHIN-A-TIME-TO-BE-FIXED-BY-THIS-HON'BLE-COURT,-AND-TO-RELEASE-THE-SANCTIONED-PERMANENT-ELECTRICITY-CONNECTION-UPON-ISSUANCE-OF-THE-OCCUPANCY-CERTIFICATE-IN-TERMS-OF-SECTION-246(5)-OF-THE-SAID-ACT-D.-IN-THE-ALTERNATIVE,-DECLARE-THAT,-NO-VALID-REFUSAL-HAVING-BEEN-INTIMATED-WITHIN-THIRTY-DAYS-OF-THE-NOTICE-OF-COMPLETION,-THE-PETITIONERS-ARE-ENTITLED-TO-OCCUPY-THE-BUILDING-BY-OPERATION-OF-SECTION-241(5)(B)-OF-THE-SAID-ACT,-THE-UNLAWFUL-RELINQUISHMENT-DEMAND-NOT-CONSTITUTING-A-LAWFUL-INTIMATION-OF-REFUSAL-E.-AWARD-COSTS-OF-THIS-PETITION--AND-GRANT-SUCH-OTHER-OR-FURTHER-RELIEF-AS-THIS-HON'BLE-COURT-MAY-DEEM-FIT-IN-THE-FACTS-AND-

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners assert ownership of a property bearing Khata No.455/455/25/5B measuring 2,648.81 Square Metres of Doddakannalli Village, Bellandur Ward, Bengaluru East within the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits [now within the Greater Bengaluru Authority limits]. The petitioners are issued with a sanctioned Building Plan and Building License on 05.02.2024 for the construction of a building with a basement, a ground floor and three upper floors. The petitioners also have the benefit of the Commencement Certificate dated

15.02.2025, which is admittedly issued upon verifying that the construction, as of that date, was in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

¶2The petitioners' grievance is with the fifth respondent's Endorsement dated

01.07.2026 [Annexure - N], and the fifth respondent has issued this Endorsement on the petitioners' application for Occupancy Certificate informing the petitioners [a] that their property abuts a road which is 24 metres in width but that has to be widened to 45 metres in terms of the Revised Master Plan 2015, [b] that the petitioners must execute Relinquishment Deed for the portion that is required for such widening, and [c] that if the petitioners require additional information, they can contact the sixth respondent.

¶3Mr. Angad Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court must intervene with the impugned Endorsement with just directions to the fifth respondent because it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioners were issued with the building license and sanctioned plan on 05.02.2024

without insisting upon any relinquishment much less relinquishment of an area required for road widening and that with the petitioners being admitted to a sanctioned plan under the Erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act'], their request for Occupancy Certificate must be considered under such enactment given the transitional powers under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, 'the GBG Act'].

¶4Mr. Angad Kamath also argues that Section 226 of the GBG Act could be invoked when an application for a Building plan is filed under the enactment, and the learned counsel proposes to elaborate on why the petitioners cannot be driven to execute the Relinquishment Deed as required under Section 226 of the GBG Act. However, this Court has heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, a learned Standing counsel for the GBA and its Officers, for disposal of the

petition essentially on the following contentions [A] The sanctioned plan/building licence is issued on

05.02.2024 without insisting on any relinquishment. [B] The petitioners have also completed the construction under this plan and license. [C] The petitioners are categorical in stating that the construction is strictly in terms of the sanctioned plan and building license without deviation. [D] If ever there is widening after due process, the petitioners will have to be bound by the process subject to the remedies available in the law.

¶5This Court is of the view that 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 sustained1.

¶6This Court must observe that its attention is not drawn to any such provision in the BBMP Act for relinquishment of property for road widening as a condition for grant of sanction/approval for a new building, or a provision under the GBG Act permitting such insistence at the time of issuing the

1 The Section 226 of the Greater Bangalore Governance Act, 2024 in its material part read as under:

¶226Relinquishment of area reserved for road. – In case of khatadar or person responsible, request for sanction of building plan before the road widening is taken up by the City Corporation or any other Authority:-

(i) The khatadar of a building site shall relinquish the area required or reserved for road formation or widening in the master plan or as notified by the City Corporation free from all encumbrances, before the sanction is accorded for the building plans under this act. The other provisions of this Section relate to the benefit that will flow if there is a relinquishment.

Occupancy Certificate for a building constructed in terms of the sanction/approval under the BBMP Act. 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. In the light of the afore, the following. ORDER

The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 01.07.2026 [Annexure - N] directing the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Bengaluru East City Corporation [the fifth respondent] to issue Occupancy Certificate to the petitioners

without insisting on the Relinquishment Deed subject to the following.

[A] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Order with the fifth respondent within a week from the date of receipt of this Order.

[B] The fifth respondent shall re-verify if the construction by the petitioners is in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

[C] The fifth respondent shall complete the process of issuing the Occupancy Certificate, or assigning reasons if it cannot be issued for any other reason, within 8 [eight] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. [D] It is observed that this disposal cannot create any equity in favour of the petitioners in the event there are any proceedings for acquiring the portion required for widening of the road. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB