Withdrawal of provisional revised master plan 2031 won't negate all actions taken in pursuance thereto, says Karnataka HC

BENGALURU: Merely because the provisional revised master plan 2031 was withdrawn by the state government would not negate all actions taken in pursuance thereto, the high court has said while granting relief to a land owner and a developer from Bengaluru city.


"The actions taken in pursuance of the provisional revised master plan 2031 must be given due effect and the withdrawal thereof would not make the revised master plan ( RMP) 2015 applicable thereto", Justice Suraj Govindaraj has observed in his order.

An apartment complex was constructed in 1 acre and 24 guntas land situated at Doddakannahalli , Varthur hobli,based an a joint development agreement ( JDA)entered to between the petitioners- Bhavani Yallappa Palyagar ( land owner) and Maarq Spaces Private Limited( the developer) in December 2016. The building licence got issued in January 2018 and also no objection certificates came to be issued by KSPCB ,BWSSB etc.The commencement certificate was issued on February 28,2019.

On completion, the petitioners applied for and obtained a consent for operation from KSPCB as also electricity connection from Bescom and made an application on May 26, 2022 for issuance of an occupancy certificate.

However, Joint Director ( Town Planning- North), BBMP took up the contention that there was a proposed road, measuring 18 mtrs going through the property of the petitioners in terms of RMP 2015 and hence refused to grant the occupancy certificate. It was also alleged that the petitioners encroached upon the said proposed RMP road and that they could not have put up construction over the said land.

The authorities also claimed since provisional revised master plan 2031 has been withdrawn by the state government on June.20,2022, they have no option but consider the application for occupancy certificate in terms of RMP-2015 only.

Though petitioners submitted a representation, since no action was taken, they approached the high court.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, after going through the rival contentions ,noted that rejection of petitioners’ application for occupancy certificate is bad on two counts.

Inasmuch as the application has been made on May 26, 2022, the provisional master plan 2031 was still in force and as such the said application ought to have been considered in terms thereof and not on the basis of the subsequent withdrawal by the state government on June 20,2022.

"Secondly, the BBMP having issued the plan sanction, commencement certificate the petitioners having acted on the plan sanctioned and put up construction by investing its monies, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the usufructs of the same merely on account of the state government withdrawing provisional revised master plan 2031 when all the authorities have proceeded with on the basis of provisional master plan 2031 by issuing a plan sanction and commencement certificate. There is no allegation as against the petitioners as regards having constructed illegally, without plan sanction or having deviated from the plan sanctioned", the judge further noted.

Allowing the petition the judge has directed the BBMP to process the application of the petitioners for occupancy certificate dated May 26,2022 and grant the same before May 31,2023, if construction put up is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and also after examining all applicable rules.