Occupancy Certificate withheld by Bengaluru civic body after landowner refused land for road widening: Landowner fights back and gets relief from Karnataka HC

Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad of the Karnataka High Court recently ruled that the Bengaluru Municipal Corporation authorities cannot impose a condition requiring landowners to surrender part of their lands for road widening work if they want to get an occupancy certificate (OC).

This judgement came about after Mr Venugopala Reddy and Mr K.N Srinivas from Doddakannalli, Bengaluru, filed a case against the government and the Bangalore municipality. Reddy and Srinivas wanted to develop their own land, which measures 2648.81 square meters (Khata No.455/455/25/5B) in Doddakannalli Village, Bellandur Ward, Bengaluru East.

Originally, this land was under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) jurisdiction, but now falls under the Greater Bengaluru Authority.


On February 5, 2024, the Bangalore municipality issued them a sanctioned building plan and building license to construct a building with a basement, a ground floor and three upper floors on this property. On February 15, 2025, Reddy and Srinivas secured the commencement certificate also. This certificate was issued by the authorities after they checked the construction and confirmed it matched the sanctioned plan.

The whole issue kicked off when the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Bengaluru East City corporation from Mahadevapura, refused to give Reddy and Srinivas an occupancy certificate (OC) by issuing an endorsement. The Town Planner said that Reddy and Srinivas’s land is next to a road which is 24 metres wide but according to the Bangalore Revised Master Plan 2015, this road was proposed to be widened to 45 metres. Because of this, the Town Planner asked Reddy and Srinivas to execute a relinquishment deed for 656.46 square meters of their land, as it was required for road-widening work.

The Town Planner also said that if Reddy and Srinivas so wished, they could contact the Assistant Executive Engineer, TDR and Land Acquisition in Bangalore East City Corporation in Shanthala Nagar.

Feeling aggrieved, Reddy and Srinivas appointed Advocate Angad Kamath and filed a case in the Karnataka High Court. Advocate Kamath argued before the high court that when Reddy and Srinivas were issued the building license and sanctioned plan back in 2024, no such road widening work was mentioned. Therefore, he contended that the government shouldn’t require them to give up part of their land for road expansion in order to receive their occupancy certificate.

Advocate Angad Kamath also argued that Section 226 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 could be invoked when an application for a building plan is filed under the enactment. Kamath argued before the court that Reddy and Srinivas can’t be compelled to execute a relinquishment deed of a portion of their land for road-widening work.

Also read: Land grabbed by neighbour for 40 years? Karnataka HC rejects adverse possession claim, upholds owner’s title

On July 10, 2026, Reddy and Srinivas won the case in the Karnataka High Court.

How Reddy and Srinivas won the case in the Karnataka High Court?

Subrata Mukherjee, Partner, SNG & Partners, Advocates & Solicitors explains to ET Wealth Online why the landowners (Reddy and Srinivas) won the case:

• No statutory provision: The petitioners (Reddy and Srinivas) succeeded because the Karnataka High Court found that the requirement to relinquish their land was a post-facto condition that had not been imposed when the building plan and licence were sanctioned or when the Commencement Certificate was issued. The Court held that the Occupancy Certificate application had to be examined on the basis of the conditions on which the building was sanctioned and constructed.
• The Karnataka High Court further held that post-facto conditions cannot be insisted upon unless there is a specific statutory provision authorising such a requirement. The Karnataka High Court noted that it had not been shown any provision under the erstwhile BBMP Act requiring such relinquishment for sanction/approval, or any provision under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 permitting the authority to impose such a requirement at the Occupancy Certificate stage.
• Section 226 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, was also relevant. In its material part, the provision contemplates relinquishment of land required or reserved for road formation or widening before sanction is accorded for the building plan. The Court therefore did not accept the subsequent administrative demand as a lawful basis for withholding the OC.
• Constitutional provision: The Court also invoked Article 300A of the Constitution, observing that a person cannot be deprived of property save by authority of law. Since the demand involved relinquishment of privately owned land without consideration, the authority could not impose it merely through the impugned endorsement.

Mukherjee says that this Karnataka High Court judgment does not prohibit road widening or future acquisition. It holds that the municipal authority cannot make free relinquishment of privately owned land a post-facto condition for an Occupancy Certificate when that condition was not imposed at the sanction stage, unless supported by specific authority of law.

Also read: Apartment owners can't stop residents of another housing society from using common amenities if sale deed allows it, rules Karnataka HC

Mukherjee says: "The petitioners (Reddy and Srinivas) therefore get the benefit of having the OC processed without the Relinquishment Deed, while the question of any future acquisition for road widening remains governed by the applicable legal process."

Karnataka High Court order and discussion

Here’s a summary of this judgement:

After the grant of building licence, sanction plan and commencement certificate, new conditions cannot be imposed

The Karnataka High Court said that in their view, it is an undisputed fact that the said relinquishment deed for a portion of land for road widening work is not a condition which was insisted on by Reddy and Srinivas when the authorities issued them the Commencement Certificate.

Thus the high court said: “Post facto conditions cannot be insisted upon, and there must be a specific provision permitting the same if such conditions are to be sustained.”

Even under BBMP Act, there is no law imposing a condition on granting OC if land is relinquished for road widening work

The Karnataka High Court said that there is no law under 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 GBG Act permitting such insistence at the time of issuing the Occupancy Certificate for a building constructed in terms of the sanction/approval under the BBMP Act.

Right to property is a constitutional right

The Karnataka High Court said that a person cannot be denied the right to property save by the Authority of law; a right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Thus, the high court said the Endorsement dated July 1, 2026, cannot be sustained and there must be directions to the Bangalore East Municipality to communicate to Reddy and Srinivas the legal demand/levy payable for issuing an Occupancy Certificate beyond what is already remitted by them for it.

The Section 226 of the Greater Bangalore Governance Act, 2024 in its material part read as under:

226. Relinquishment of area reserved for road: In case of khatadar or person responsible, request for sanction of building plan before the road widening is taken up by the City Corporation or any other Authority:-

(i) The khatadar of a building site shall relinquish the area required or reserved for road formation or widening in the master plan or as notified by the City Corporation free from all encumbrances, before the sanction is accorded for the building plans under this act.

The other provisions of this Section relate to the benefit that will flow if there is a relinquishment.

Order:

• The high court said that the municipality must re-verify if the construction made by Reddy and Srinivas in their land is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and then complete the process of issuing an occupancy certificate.
• The Karnataka High Court also clarified that this judgement did not create any equity in favour of Reddy and Srinivas in the event there are any proceedings for acquiring the portion of land required for widening of the road.