Karnataka HC Quashes Demand for Relinquishment Deed as Condition for Occupancy Certificate

The Karnataka High Court held that a civic authority cannot demand free land for road widening as a post-facto condition for granting an occupancy certificate when no such requirement existed at the building licence stage.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in an oral order dated 10 July 2026, quashed an endorsement issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bengaluru East City Corporation, that conditioned the grant of an occupancy certificate on the property owners executing a relinquishment deed for 656.46 square metres of their land, free of cost, to facilitate road widening. Justice B M Shyam Prasad, sitting singly, directed the fifth respondent to process the occupancy certificate application without insisting on the relinquishment deed, holding that post-facto conditions unsupported by a specific statutory provision cannot be sustained, and that deprivation of property without authority of law violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The Property and the Building Licence

The two petitioners, Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Sri K N Srinivas, are co-owners of a property bearing Khata No. 455/455/25/5B measuring 2,648.81 square metres at Doddakannalli Village, Bellandur Ward, Bengaluru East, originally within the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits and now within the Greater Bengaluru Authority limits.

They were issued a sanctioned building plan and building licence on 5 February 2024 for the construction of a building comprising a basement, a ground floor, and three upper floors. No relinquishment of any land was insisted upon at that stage. A commencement certificate followed on 15 February 2025, issued after verification that construction up to that date was in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The petitioners stated that the construction was completed strictly in terms of the sanctioned plan and licence, without any deviation.

The petitioners then applied for an occupancy certificate under application number PRJ/11300/23-24(OC). In response, the fifth respondent — the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bengaluru East City Corporation, Mahadevapura Zone-1 — issued an endorsement dated 1 July 2026 bearing number BPNPCNR)V-1)/PR/132/26-27.

The Impugned Endorsement

The endorsement informed the petitioners of three things: their property abuts a road that is currently 24 metres wide but must be widened to 45 metres under the Revised Master Plan 2015; they must execute a relinquishment deed for the portion required for that widening; and if they needed further information, they should contact the sixth respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer (TDR and Land Acquisition), Bengaluru East City Corporation.

The relinquishment being demanded was 656.46 square metres, to be given free of cost, as a condition precedent to the grant of the occupancy certificate.

The Legal Challenge

Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Angad Kamath, raised the challenge on two grounds before the court. First, he argued that neither the building licence nor the commencement certificate had ever made relinquishment a condition. The petitioners had completed construction in conformity with what was approved, and the demand surfaced only at the occupancy certificate stage — a stage at which the construction is already complete.

Second, he contended that Section 226 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (GBG Act), which deals with relinquishment of area reserved for road widening, is triggered only when a person makes a request for sanction of a building plan, not when applying for an occupancy certificate. The petitioners' building licence was sanctioned under the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (BBMP Act), and their request for an occupancy certificate should accordingly be considered under that enactment, particularly given the transitional provisions of the GBG Act. Counsel indicated he was prepared to elaborate further on why Section 226 of the GBG Act could not apply to the petitioners' situation, but the court found it unnecessary to go that far.

The court also noted the petitioners had raised the alternative plea that since no valid refusal was communicated within thirty days of the notice of completion, they were entitled to occupy the building by operation of Section 241(5)(b) of the GBG Act, the relinquishment demand not constituting a lawful intimation of refusal.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice B M Shyam Prasad framed the core question plainly: can the authority impose a relinquishment condition at the occupancy certificate stage when no such condition was attached to the building licence or the commencement certificate?

The court observed that Section 226 of the GBG Act, in its material part, applies when a khatadar or person responsible makes a request for sanction of a building plan before road widening is taken up. The section requires relinquishment of the area reserved for road widening in the master plan, free of encumbrances, before sanction is accorded for building plans under the Act. The court noted that the other provisions of Section 226 relate to benefits that flow from such a relinquishment.

Crucially, the court found that no provision in the BBMP Act makes relinquishment of property for road widening a condition for grant of sanction or approval for a new building. Equally, no provision under the GBG Act was brought to the court's attention that permits insistence on relinquishment at the stage of issuing an occupancy certificate for a building already constructed under a sanction granted under the BBMP Act.

The court then stated: “Post facto conditions cannot be insisted upon, and there must be a specific provision permitting the same.” In the absence of such a provision, the demand could not be sustained. The bench tied this squarely to Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which protects a person's right to property against deprivation without authority of law.

The court was also clear that disposing of the petition on these grounds would not create any equity in the petitioners' favour if proceedings for acquiring the portion of their land required for road widening were initiated in future through a due process. The order expressly preserves that position.

Directions to the Fifth Respondent

Having quashed the endorsement dated 1 July 2026, the court issued a set of time-bound directions to the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bengaluru East City Corporation.

The petitioners were given liberty to file a certified copy of the order with the fifth respondent within one week of receipt. On receipt, the fifth respondent must re-verify that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The fifth respondent must then either issue the occupancy certificate or assign reasons why it cannot be issued on any other ground, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The court also directed the fifth respondent, before the occupancy certificate is issued, to communicate to the petitioners the legal demand or levy payable for issuing the certificate, beyond what has already been remitted by them.

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 20839 of 2026 was allowed. The endorsement dated 1 July 2026 issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bengaluru East City Corporation, Mahadevapura Zone-1, insofar as it required the petitioners to execute a relinquishment deed for 656.46 square metres as a condition for the grant of an occupancy certificate, was quashed. The fifth respondent was directed to process and complete the occupancy certificate issuance within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, subject to re-verification of conformity with the sanctioned plan. The order expressly clarifies that it will not generate any equity against future road widening acquisition proceedings conducted through due process.