Allowed

M/S Kare Electronics and Development Private Limited v. the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026WP/27960/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A developer sought mandamus for a final occupancy certificate for Block-A of an apartment complex completed in 2012. The court held that non-registration under RERA 2016 and internal clubbing of apartments, absent any deviation from sanctioned building parameters, were not valid grounds for withholding the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed; respondents directed to issue final occupancy certificate for Block No.A of Building No.1 within eight weeks.

M/S Kare Electronics and Development Private… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27960 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S KARE ELECTRONICS AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.101, EDEN PARK, NO.20, VITTAL MALLAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶10

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA M/S.SKY LINE CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.11, HAYES ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.AVINASH PRABHU

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶16

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BUILDING LICENSE CELL, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R-1 AND 2 TO FORTHWITH ISSUE FINAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BLOCK-A OF THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAND IN SY.NO. 3/2 AND 4, BBMP KATHA NO. 447/3/2, 4 WARD NO. 7 AMRUTHAHALLY VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 13.12.2022 AND 12.06.2024 AT ANNX-J AND L AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

" i) issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith issue final occupancy certificate in respect of Block-A of the residential apartment constructed in the land inSy.No.3/2 and 4, BBMP Katha No.447/3/2, 4 Ward No.7, Amruthahally Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore by considering the representations dated 13.12.2022 and 12.06.2024 at Annexures-J and L.

¶30

ii) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity ."

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 4 acres in Survey Nos.3/2 and 4 situated in Amruthahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. After following the due process, procedure and obtaining a plan sanction, the petitioner put up a construction of an apartment complex in the said property. There were certain modifications from the year 2007, and the construction was completed in the year 2012.

¶34

Upon inspection of the building, the Assistant Director of Town Planning, BBMP had issued an endorsement pointing out certain defects. These defects were also cleared by the petitioner and resubmitted on 28.08.2015. When one more endorsement was issued, indicating certain other defects, which were also complied with by the petitioner and a representation submitted on 23.12.2015.

¶35

Thereafter, the petitioner has sold the apartments to various persons who are in occupation of the said apartments. In the year 2019, the respondents called upon the petitioner to make payment of certain amounts,

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

which was again revised on 29.08.2020 and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12204/2020, partial occupancy certificate also came to be issued on 17.09.2022 in respect of Block Nos.B, C, D, E and F, and Building No.1 and Cub House in Building No.2.

¶39

As regards, Block No.A in Building No.1, there were certain issues that had been pointed out, which were required to be complied with by the petitioner. These issues were encapsulated in the order dated 10.02.2026 of this Court, and an inspection was directed to be conducted to ascertain if those defects have been complied with by the petitioner.

¶40

Today, i.e., on 19.02.2026, a memo has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner enclosing photographs of the building indicating that solar panels have been installed in the said building, which is taken on record.

¶41

The inspection report has been filed a perusal of which would indicate that all the defects which have been pointed out, have been complied with except two, namely;

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

(1) that in the 7^th , 10^th and 11^th floor, two apartments have been clubbed together to form a single apartment, which is not in terms of the sanction plan.

¶45

(2) that there is no registration with the

¶46

Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short 'the RERA') since the Act came into force in the year 2017 and the modified plan sanction was granted on 17.09.2022.

¶47

It is on account of these two pending issues that the learned counsel for respondents submits that the occupation certificate has not been issued.

¶48

In view of the subsequent compliances effected by the petitioner–developer, the controversy in the present writ petition now stands substantially narrowed. All other defects earlier pointed out by the respondent–authorities having been rectified to their satisfaction, the adjudicatory exercise of this Court is now confined only to the two surviving issues referred to above. The scope and

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ambit of the present proceedings is, therefore, restricted to the examination of (i) the requirement of registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in the peculiar facts of the case, and (ii) the alleged violation arising out of clubbing of certain apartments.

¶52

Insofar as the question of registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is concerned, the material facts are not in dispute. The building plan was sanctioned in the year 2007 and construction was completed in the year 2012. Thereafter, the apartments were sold to individual purchasers, who have been in possession and occupation of their respective units for several years, albeit without the issuance of a final occupancy certificate. It is also not in dispute that in respect of Block Nos. B, C, D, E and F, a partial occupancy certificate was issued on 17.09.2022.

¶53

The only pending aspect pertains to Building No.1 of Block No.A. Even in respect of the said building, the construction had been completed as early as in the year 2012, though certain defects had been pointed out from

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

time to time by the respondent–authorities, which the petitioner asserts have now been duly rectified.

¶58

It is the categorical submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no complaint has been lodged by any of the apartment purchasers either before the authority constituted under the said Act or before any other forum alleging deficiency in construction or violation of statutory obligations. This submission has not been controverted.

¶59

In the above factual backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that denial of an occupancy certificate at this stage, solely on the ground of absence of registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, would result in manifest hardship to the apartment purchasers who have been in occupation of the premises for over a decade. The occupancy certificate is a municipal compliance document certifying that the building, as constructed, conforms to the sanctioned plan and applicable building bye-laws. In the present case, the project was sanctioned in 2007 and completed in 2012, and all units have been sold, consideration received and

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

possession delivered. Insistence upon registration at this stage would not subserve the regulatory objectives contemplated under the Act, which are primarily directed towards ensuring transparency, financial discipline and consumer protection during the development and construction phase. Since the construction stands completed and the transactions concluded, the withholding of occupancy certificate would adversely affect third-party purchasers rather than advance any statutory purpose.

¶63

Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, non-registration under the Act cannot be held to be a valid ground for withholding the occupancy certificate. It is, however, clarified that this observation is confined strictly to the limited question of issuance of occupancy certificate and shall not preclude any apartment purchaser from availing such remedies as may be available in law under the Act or otherwise, if any independent cause of action subsists.

¶64

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Insofar as the clubbing of apartments on Floor Nos. 7, 10 and 11 is concerned, the material on record indicates that at the request of individual purchasers, two adjoining apartments were amalgamated into a single larger residential unit. There is no material placed before this Court to demonstrate that such internal reconfiguration has resulted in any increase in the total built-up area, encroachment upon mandatory setbacks, alteration of structural stability, breach of height restrictions, or change in the sanctioned land use. The total constructed area remains within the sanctioned parameters and the external structure, footprint and volumetric dimensions of the building remain unaltered. The scrutiny undertaken at the stage of issuance of occupancy certificate is essentially with reference to compliance of the building as a whole, including total constructed area, floor area ratio, setbacks, height and structural safety norms. The process

¶67

is building-centric and not apartment-centric. In the absence of any demonstrable violation affecting the overall sanctioned parameters, the mere clubbing of two

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:10402 WP No. 27960 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

apartments, per se, cannot be construed as a deviation warranting denial of occupancy certificate.

¶72

Having regard to the fact that all defects pointed out by the respondent–authorities have been complied with, that the construction was completed in the year 2012, that purchasers are in long-settled possession and occupation, that partial occupancy certificates have already been issued in respect of other blocks, and that the remaining objections do not disclose any substantive violation of building bye-laws, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met by directing issuance of occupancy certificate in respect of Building No.1 of Block No.A, subject to compliance of any formalities that may remain in accordance with law. Hence, I pass the following

¶73

ORDER

¶74