Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a dispute between an association of apartment owners and a real estate developer regarding the construction of an additional residential block in a residential complex in Bengaluru. The first appellant is H.M. Tambourine Apartment Owners Association, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The second appellant is an individual apartment owner. The respondents include Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), the developer M/s Pedigree Constructions Pvt Ltd, an individual former apartment owner, and Greater Bengaluru Authority. The developer owned 3 acres and 20.18 guntas of land in Sy.No.28, Kanakapura Road, Jaraganahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. It entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 19.08.2003 with M/s H.M. Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. for construction of a residential complex named H.M. Tambourine, comprising 241 apartments in four towers. BDA sanctioned the plan on 21.07.2003 and issued Commencement Certificate on 31.01.2004; occupancy certificate was issued on 29.04.2006. The developer sold all 241 apartments to purchasers with undivided shares in the entire land. Later, the developer applied for a modified plan to construct an additional apartment block, 'B' Block, on vacant land outside the boundary wall of A Block. BDA issued Modified Sanction Plan dated 24.06.2016 for construction of 120 apartments, considering Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the entire 3 acres and 20.18 guntas, including the land already used for A Block. The apartment owners contended that the entire permissible FAR of 2.00 had already been utilised for A Block (actual FAR used 1.827, plus ground coverage), leaving no scope for further construction. They also stated that the proposed B Block was being built on the driveway, entry/exit gates, and fire engine access way, which are common amenities for A Block residents; this would violate their undivided interest in common areas under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The dispute had multiple prior proceedings. In a civil suit filed by the developer, the City Civil Court granted temporary injunction restraining the association from interfering with B Block construction; an appeal against that injunction led to vacation of status quo. Separate writ petitions challenging the modified plan had interim orders vacated, and later were dismissed as withdrawn. The present writ petition, W.P.No.17375/2017, sought quashing of the Modified Sanction Plan dated 24.06.2016 and the BDA's reply letter dated 08.01.2018 refusing to cancel the modified plan. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 25.03.2024, relying on BDA's affidavit that the modified plan was sanctioned in accordance with law and Regulation 3.6 of the Revised Master Plan of 2015. Against the Single Judge's dismissal, the present intra-court appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. On 08.12.2025, the appellate court directed both parties to file affidavits on whether the proposed B Block falls inside or outside the boundary of the existing residential complex, the extent of land and common facilities, and the status of the land in the original sanction plan. The appellant's affidavit asserted that the developer was constructing B Block within the boundary on common facilities and that the full FAR for the entire land had already been consumed. The respondent no.2 filed an affidavit, but the excerpt ends before its full content and before the court's final reasoning. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 27.07.2026, and judgment was pronounced on 18.08.2026, but the provided text does not include the operative part.
Headnote
A) Real Estate Law - Building Plan Sanction - Validity of Modified Sanction Plan - Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972; Bangalore Development Authority Regulations - The BDA issued Modified Sanction Plan dated 24.06.2016 for construction of B Block comprising 120 apartments, taking FAR of entire land including A Block. Single Judge dismissed writ petition accepting BDA affidavit that modified plan was sanctioned in accordance with law and Regulation 3.6 of Revised Master Plan of 2015. Court directed affidavits on FAR utilization and physical location of proposed block to verify whether sanctioned plan unlawfully permits construction on already utilized FAR. Held that validity of modified sanction requires examination of prior FAR consumption and encroachment on common areas (Paras 9, 13-14, 16-17). B) Property Law - Common Areas and Amenities - Apartment Owners' Rights - Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972; Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 14 - Apartment owners have undivided interest in common areas and facilities; developer cannot alter structure or construct additional structure without previous consent. Appellant contended B Block was being constructed on driveway, entry/exit gates, and fire engine access way, which are common amenities of existing A Block. Court sought affidavit on whether proposed block falls within boundary of existing complex. Held that protecting statutory rights of apartment owners over common areas is a central issue (Paras 7-8, 15, 17). C) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Status Quo and Injunction - Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 Section 4 - Procedural history includes temporary injunction in Original Suit No.8454/2016, vacation of status quo in MFA No.5580/2017, and dismissal of earlier writ petitions as withdrawn. Present appeal arises under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act against Single Judge dismissal. Held that the court may examine correctness of interim orders and final dismissal (Paras 10-12). D) Administrative Law - Building Regulations - Compliance with Zoning Norms - Revised Master Plan of 2015 Regulation 3.6 - Single Judge relied on BDA affidavit that no violation of Regulation 3.6 of Revised Master Plan of 2015. Appellant asserted permissible FAR of 2.00 already utilized for entire land and no land left for future development. Court required respondent to file original and proposed sanction plans to assess compliance. Held that administrative sanction must strictly adhere to applicable zoning regulations and cannot permit double utilisation of FAR (Paras 13, 16-17, 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Modified Sanction Plan dated 24.06.2016 permitting construction of B Block is valid in law; whether the proposed construction falls on common areas and amenities of existing A Block and violates apartment owners' rights; whether the BDA correctly considered FAR and ground coverage of entire land; whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition based on BDA's affidavit.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt; the appellate court heard and reserved judgment on 27.07.2026, but the final operative order is not included.
Law Points
- Apartment owners have undivided interest in common areas and facilities under Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act
- 1972
- Developer cannot alter structure or construct additional structure without previous consent of apartment owners under Karnataka Ownership Flats Act
- 1972 and Section 14 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
- 2016
- BDA sanctioning modified plan must comply with FAR and ground coverage
- entire land FAR cannot be used twice
- construction on common amenities like driveway and fire engine access violates statutory rights
- modified plan must not contravene Regulation 3.6 of Revised Master Plan of 2015
