The Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Vs M/S Shriprop Projects Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. SHRIPROP PROJECTS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SHRIRAM HOUSE NO.31, II MAIN ROAD, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI KRISHNA VEERARAGHAVAN.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:18078-DB WA No. 1782 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED REGD OFF AT BMTC COMPLEX III FLOOR, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

¶23

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W P No. 3132/2025 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED:18.08.2025 PASSED IN WP No. 3132/2025 (LB-BMP) AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶26

and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18078-DB WA No. 1782 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.3132/2025.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶34

referred to as per their rankings before the writ Court.

¶35

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing property measuring 1,65,958 Sq. ft bearing BBMP Khatha Nos.243/254/41, 129/83 and 93 to 101, situated Jaraganahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South. The petitioner with the purpose of putting up multistoried residential apartment complex had applied for sanctioning the building plans before the BBMP. The building plans could get sanctioned on 21.12.2016.

¶36

It is the further claim of the petitioner that the portion of the property of the petitioner is situated within 150 meters of a metro railway station and in respect of the

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18078-DB WA No. 1782 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

said portion, as on 2016, the petitioner was entitled for Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-4. However, the said concession was withdrawn by means of Notification and reduced to FAR-3.25. The petitioner's building plans were sanctioned

¶40

with FAR-3.25 Sq.mtrs. However, the petitioner applied for increase in the FAR of 4, in pursuance to the Notification dated 29.09.2018.

¶41

5. According to the petitioner, he made an

¶42

application on 13.08.2019 for increase in the FAR-4. The Notification dated 29.09.2018 had been issued withdrawing the concession even before filing of the application, therefore, there was no question of sanctioning the revised building plans, taking the FAR-4. However, strangely enough, the BBMP in its wisdom

¶43

sanctioned the revised building plan granting FAR-4 on 07.12.2019. The BBMP obliged the petitioner for reasons best known to it and sanctioned the revised plans on 07.12.2019 granting FAR-4. Though the Notification regarding the concession of FAR-4 was withdrawn on

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:18078-DB WA No. 1782 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

29.09.2018, obviously the revised plans were issued for

¶48

considerations other than just, valid and legal.

¶49

The petitioner had constructed altogether four

¶50

Towers. The partial occupancy certificate in respect of the Towers- A, B and C was issued on 26.09.2022. However, in respect of the Tower D, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.08.2023 for issuance of the occupancy certificate which had not been considered and therefore, the petitioner came before this Court in the writ petition seeking for Writ of Mandamus directing the BBMP to consider his application dated 29.08.2023 for issuance of occupancy certificate in respect of Tower-D in accordance with the sanctioned building plan dated 07.12.2019 in which the FAR-4 was sanctioned.

¶51

The learned Single Judge vide the judgment

¶52

and order has directed the respondent-authority to consider the application of the petitioner for granting the occupancy certificate, if the same is not in violation of the

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:18078-DB WA No. 1782 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

modified sanctioned building plan dated 07.12.2019 within

¶57

a period of 30 days.

¶58

The said judgment and order passed by the

¶59

learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the present writ appeal. As we have noted the revised sanction building plan dated 07.12.2019 was illegal and was issued

¶60

for considerations other than just and legal. The petitioner cannot take benefit of illegality committed by some officer. The petitioner knew fully well that the FAR was only 3.25,

¶61

but he made an application after the Notification granting FAR-4 was withdrawn on 29.09.2018.

¶62

The petitioner cannot ask for putting up the premium on the illegality committed in collaboration by some officers in granting the FAR-4, when the concession of granting FAR-4 stood withdrawn by means of Notification dated supra. The petitioner has taken the risk of putting up unauthorised construction and therefore, the petitioner has only two options: (i) to buy the

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18078-DB WA No. 1782 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Transferrable Development Rights ('TDR' for short) at the present market rate or (ii) face the consequence of putting up unauthorised construction, that is, demolition of the excess construction, breaching permissible FAR 3.25.

¶66

Mr.T.P.Vivekanand, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the petitioner would buy the TDR for 1,312 Sq.mtr for which the BBMP will communicate in writing the cost to be paid by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. On this communication of cost for buying the TDR for extra construction of 1,312 Sq.mtrs, the petitioners shall pay the amount within a period of four weeks from the date of the communication of the cost by the BBMP, now Greater Bengaluru Authority ('GBA' for short).

¶67

With the aforesaid observation and direction writ appeal is disposed of .

¶68

Once the payment is made and if on inspection, the building is found to be in accordance with the

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:18078-DB WA No. 1782 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

sanctioned building plans and as per the relevant regulations and rules, the BBMP/GBA shall issue the occupancy certificate within a period of three weeks thereafter (Date of payment).

¶73

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is/are disposed of.

¶74

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶76

RR

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 ct-vn

The Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike v. M/S Shriprop Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike v. M/S Shriprop Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary Vs Puttaswamy

Abdul Gani Sab Buden Sab Dead by Lrs Vs Sri Shankarappa Fakkirappa Talwar

M/S Puravankara Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

The Secretary Vs Sri M B Basavaraju

M/S Ayana Renewable Power Six Private Limited Vs the Revenue Commissioner

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Mahadevamma