GBA cannot impose new conditions for "occupancy certificate": HC

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the civic agency cannot insist on post-facto conditions for issuance of an occupancy certificate (OC) to property owners when they have constructed the building as per building licence and sanctioned plan.

While allowing a petition filed by KN Venugopal and KN Srinivas, residents of Doddakannelli in the city, challenging the endorsement dated July 1, 2026, issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning of Bengaluru East City Corporation, justice BM Shyam Prasad passed the order recently.

The petitioners are the owners of a property measuring 2,648.81sqm in Doddakannelli in Bengaluru East, within Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, now Greater Bengaluru Authority. They were issued a sanctioned building plan and building licence in February 2024 for construction of the building, and also secured a commencement certificate in February 2025. It was admittedly issued upon verifying that construction was in accordance with the plan.

However, the Assistant Director of Town Planning of Bengaluru East City Corporation issued an endorsement dated July 1, 2026, on the petitioners’ application for occupancy certificate (OC), informing them that their property abuts a road which is 24m in width but that has to be widened to 45m in terms of the Revised Master Plan 2015, and therefore they must execute a relinquishment deed for the portion that is required for widening. Therefore, the petitioners moved the high court.

According to The court, 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 GBA Act permitting such insistence at the time of issuing the OC for a building constructed in terms of the sanction/approval under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act, 2020. While directing the GBA to problem OC to the petitioners, a person cannot be denied his property save by the Authority of law; a right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the court added.

Since they constructed the building as per the sanctioned plan under the erstwhile BBMP Act, the petitioners contended that the endorsement is against law as the corporation cannot insist that the petitioners execute relinquishment when they applied for the OC.