The Karnataka High Court has set aside a demand made by the Town Planning Authorities requiring property owners to execute a relinquishment deed for over 656 square metres of land without consideration as a condition for issuing an Occupancy Certificate. The single judge bench of Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad allowed the petition filed by the owners of a property in Doddakannalli Village, Bellandur, who had completed construction of a basement and four floors in accordance with a sanctioned building plan.
The court observed that the petitioners were issued a sanctioned building plan and building licence on February 5, 2024, followed by a commencement certificate on February 15, 2025, under the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act, 2020. After completion of construction, when the petitioners applied for the Occupancy Certificate, the Assistant Director of Town Planning (Respondent No. 5) issued an endorsement in July 2026 stating that the property abutted a 24-metre road which needed to be widened to 45 metres under the Revised Master Plan of 2015. The authority allegedly directed the petitioners to execute a deed of relinquishment for the land required for such widening free of cost before the OC could be granted.
The petitioners challenged this condition, asserting that no such requirement was imposed at the time of sanctioning the building licence or issuing the commencement certificate. The court noted that neither the BBMP Act under which the plan was sanctioned nor the Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) Act, 2024, contained any specific provision permitting authorities to demand a relinquishment deed for road widening as a precondition for sanctioning a new building or issuing an Occupancy Certificate.
Invoking Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the court held that a person cannot be deprived of the right to property save by the authority of law. It observed that the impugned endorsement dated July 1, 2026, could not be sustained as it amounted to an unauthorised post-facto condition lacking statutory backing. The court emphasised that post-facto conditions cannot be insisted upon unless there is a specific provision in law permitting the same.
The court further directed the authorities to issue the Occupancy Certificate to the petitioners without insisting on the execution of the relinquishment deed. It ordered the fifth respondent to communicate to the petitioners the legal demand or levy, if any, payable for issuing the Occupancy Certificate beyond what had already been remitted by them.
The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must act within the bounds of enabling legislation and cannot evolve new conditions after the fact to obstruct lawful completion and use of property. The court’s reliance on constitutional protection of property rights underscores the limits of executive power in imposing financial or proprietary burdens without legislative sanction.