Case Note & Summary
The matter was an intra-court writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, arising from the dismissal of W.P.No.17375/2017 by a learned Single Judge on 25.03.2024. The appellant was an association of apartment owners in a residential complex, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and the second appellant was an individual apartment owner. The first respondent was the Bangalore Development Authority, the second respondent was the developer company, the third respondent was an individual, and the fourth respondent was the Greater Bengaluru Authority, impleaded during the appeal. The dispute concerned the validity of a BDA modified sanction plan dated 24.06.2016 permitting construction of an additional apartment block ('B' Block) with 120 apartments on land where an existing residential complex ('A' Block) of 241 apartments had already been constructed and occupied after issuance of an occupancy certificate. The developer had entered into a joint development agreement on 19.08.2003 with M/s. H.M. Estates & Properties, later incorporated as M/s. H.M. Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd., for construction of a residential complex on 3 acres 20.18 guntas in Sy.No.28, Kanakapura Road. BDA sanctioned the plan and issued commencement certificate on 31.01.2004, later approving the building plan on 17.05.2006 and issuing occupancy certificate dated 29.04.2006 for 241 apartments in four towers. The developer sold all 241 apartments with undivided shares. The association managed the complex under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. According to the association, each apartment owner had an undivided interest in common areas and facilities and no additional construction could be undertaken without their previous consent under the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 and Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. BDA issued a modified sanction plan dated 24.06.2016 for B Block on the vacant land outside the boundary wall of A Block. The association contended that the entire permissible FAR of 2.00 for the total land of 13,962 sq.m. had already been utilised for A Block and no land remained for future development; that B Block was being constructed on the driveway, entry/exit gates and fire engine access, all common amenities. The developer allegedly executed agreements to sell in respect of B Block and transferred undivided shares belonging to existing owners. Earlier proceedings included a civil suit filed by the developer in OS No.8454/2016, in which a temporary injunction was granted on 22.04.2017 against the association; an appeal MFA No.5580/2017 where status quo was initially granted on 08.08.2017 and vacated on 06.10.2017; and writ petitions by A Block residents (W.P.No.20615/2017 and W.P.Nos.20867-20877/2017) where interim orders were vacated on 14.06.2017. The present writ petition W.P.No.17375/2017 sought quashing of the modified sanction plan and the BDA reply letter dated 08.01.2018 refusing cancellation. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying on BDA's affidavit that the modified plan was in accordance with law and no violation of Regulation 3.6 of the Revised Master Plan of 2015. On appeal, the Division Bench on 08.12.2025 directed the appellant association and respondent No.2 to file affidavits on specific points concerning the location of B Block relative to the boundary, the extent of land and common facilities, and the status of the land in the original sanction plan; it also directed respondent No.2 to produce original and modified sanction plans. The appellant filed an affidavit on 17.12.2025 reiterating that B Block was within the boundary and on common driveways and fire access, and that the total FAR had been exhausted. Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit on 28.01.2026, but the available text ends before its contents are stated. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 27.07.2026 and pronounced on 18.08.2026. The provided judgment text does not include the final operative portion or the court's final reasoning.
Headnote
A) Real Estate Law - Apartment Owners' Rights and Common Areas - Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 and Section 14 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Developer Cannot Alienate Common Areas Without Consent - Petitioners contended each apartment owner has undivided interest in common areas and facilities and developer cannot make any alteration or construct additional structure without previous consent; the court directed affidavits to determine whether proposed B Block falls within boundary and affects common amenities (Paras 7, 14-14.2). B) Land Use and Planning - Sanctity of Sanctioned Building Plan and FAR Utilization - Bangalore Development Authority Modified Plan - Regulation 3.6 of Revised Master Plan of 2015 and Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Petitioners alleged modified sanction plan for B Block was issued ignoring that total permissible FAR of 2.00 for entire land was already utilized for A Block, leaving no land for further development; BDA contended modified plan was sanctioned in accordance with law with no violation of Regulation 3.6 (Paras 9-13, 16-17). C) Property Law - Undivided Share and Common Amenities - Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 - Existing flat owners claimed construction of B Block encroaches on driveway, entry/exit gates, fire access, common facilities; respondent No.2 allegedly sold undivided share in B Block to third parties illegally; court required evidence on status of land in original plan (Paras 8, 15-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether BDA's modified sanction plan dated 24.06.2016 for construction of 'B' Block is legally valid; Whether proposed 'B' Block falls within or outside boundary of existing residential complex 'A' Block; Whether construction encroaches on common amenities and violates apartment owners' statutory rights; Whether total permissible FAR for entire land was exhausted; Whether learned Single Judge erred in dismissing W.P.No.17375/2017
Final Decision
Not mentioned - final operative order not contained in provided judgment excerpt.
Law Points
- Apartment owners have undivided interest in common areas and facilities
- Developer cannot alter structure or construct additional structure without previous consent of apartment owners under Karnataka Ownership Flats Act
- 1972 and Section 14 of RERA
- Modified building plan must comply with Revised Master Plan 2015 Regulation 3.6
- Sanctioned plan once fully implemented and occupancy certificate issued cannot be modified to consume common areas without consent
- FAR utilization for entire land determines availability for future construction
- Writ appeal under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act
- 1961 lies against single judge order
