Karnataka High Court Quashes BBMP’s Construction Approval | Landowners Retain No Title After Conveying Undivided Share | Entire Plot Stood In The Ownership Of Apartment Owners Collectively
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda held that the erstwhile landowners possessed no title to seek approval for constructing a new apartment complex on land already transferred through sale deeds. The Court quashed the approval granted by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for the construction of an additional apartment complex, directing that such approvals be considered illegal when the original land ownership has already been conveyed to apartment owners collectively. The Court concluded that the ownership of the land stands transferred to the apartment owners, and the former landowners have no legal standing to retain exclusive rights over any portion of the property.
The matter arose from the development of Keerthi Harmony Apartments in Bengaluru. M/s. Keerthi Estates Private Limited entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 28.01.2005 with the original landowners for constructing an apartment complex on 5 acres and 16 guntas (2,35,224 sq. ft.) of land. Under the agreement, the built-up area was to be shared according to agreed terms. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) sanctioned the building plan on 29.03.2007, with a specific condition that a relinquishment deed be executed for road widening. On 23.07.2007, the Builder executed a registered Relinquishment Deed, earmarking a 15-meter-wide road for road widening.
The sanctioned building plan also earmarked a 1104.40 sq. mtr. area for a Rain Water Harvesting Unit (RWHU) and Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). Despite this, the Builder constructed the apartments and sold them to buyers, conveying an undivided share in the entire property through sale deeds. One such deed was executed on 26.05.2010, clearly stating that the purchasers would have peaceful possession and undivided ownership rights over the entire property. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board granted consent for sewage discharge, and the BDA issued an Occupancy Certificate on 11.10.2010.
However, in 2018, the original landowners applied to the BBMP for approval to construct a new apartment complex on the 990.54 sq. mtr. land portion, which was originally earmarked for RWHU and STP. BBMP granted this approval, leading the Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association to challenge the approval, arguing that the landowners had already conveyed their entire interest in the land.
The petitioners asserted that by virtue of the sale deeds executed in favor of apartment purchasers, the landowners had divested themselves of all rights, title, and interest over the entire extent of land. Even if the RWHU and STP were relocated, the remaining area was still part of the common property under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The Association filed a suit for injunction and also initiated this writ petition.
The Builder and landowners contested, arguing that the reserved area remained with them for future development and that the Apartment Owners had no legal claim over it. They claimed that deviations from the sanctioned plan were within permissible limits and regularized upon paying compounding fees. They also argued that the Apartment Owners had accepted Rs. 9,00,000 for upgrading the STP in 2014, which indicated their acquiescence.
Justice N S Sanjay Gowda recorded that "the entire land on which the building is located becomes a common area" under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The Court observed that the apartment owners had purchased an undivided interest over the entire land as evidenced by sale deeds.
The Court stated, "In law, the entire land on which the building is located becomes a common area. As a consequence, neither the erstwhile landowner nor the persons who purchased the apartment flats can ever contend that they have exclusive right over that portion of the land."
The Court further observed that merely because the landowners retained apartments as their share did not mean that they retained ownership of any specific undivided land. The sale deeds clearly specified that an undivided share in the entire property was conveyed.
Addressing the Builder’s argument regarding future development, the Court stated, "Even if the plan did indicate that an extent of 1104.40 sq.mtr. had been retained for future development by the landowners, by virtue of the fact that after the plan was approved, the property was conveyed by the erstwhile landowners in favour of the apartment owners, the ownership of the entire property stood transferred collectively to the apartment owners."
Regarding BBMP's approval, the Court held, "The BBMP could not have entertained the plea of the erstwhile landowners who put forth the representation that they had retained an extent of 1104.40 sq.mtr. and were entitled to put up a new apartment building on that extent."
The Court concluded that "The landowners possessed no title to seek approval of plan from the BBMP. Consequently, the grant of approval by the BBMP to build a new apartment complex would be wholly illegal."
In its final directions, the Karnataka High Court quashed the approval granted by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to construct a new apartment complex on land originally earmarked for utility infrastructure. The Court held that the entire 2,35,224 sq.ft. of land, on which the original apartment complex “Keerthi Harmony” was constructed, had already been conveyed to the apartment purchasers through registered sale deeds. This conveyance, the Court declared, included the entire land as a common area under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, making it collectively owned by all flat owners.
The Court rejected the claim by the erstwhile landowners that a portion of land measuring approximately 990.54 sq.mtr. (referred to in the plan as "remaining area reserved for owner") had been retained by them for future development. It categorically ruled that once the landowners executed sale deeds conveying undivided interests in the entire extent of 2,35,224 sq.ft. to the apartment owners, they ceased to retain exclusive ownership over any portion of that land. Therefore, they had no legal authority to seek or obtain building plan approval from BBMP for new construction.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’, which constituted the BBMP’s approval for the new apartment complex. The writ petition filed by the Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association was allowed in full. The Court held that the BBMP’s action of granting approval based on the landowners’ representation of retained ownership was illegal and unsustainable in law.
Finally, all pending interlocutory applications arising out of the writ petition stood disposed of with the conclusion of the main matter.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Smt. Beena P. K., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Sammith S., Advocate for R-1; Sri. K. S. Mallikarjuna Reddy,; Sri. M. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, Sri. K. Krishne, Advocate.
Case Title: Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association vs. M/s. Keerthi Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:17184
Case Number: WP No. 19151 of 2021
Bench: Justice N S Sanjay Gowda
[Read/Download order]
