- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.3132 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. 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, BANGALORE-560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. KRISHNA VEERARAGHAVAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 REPT. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 3. THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE BMTC COMPLEX, III FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 & R.2; NOTICE TO R.3 NOT NECESSARY VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.02.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO FORTHWITH ISSUE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF TOWER-D BY CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 29.08.2023 AT ANNEXURE-J IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT TO WHICH MODIFIED PLAN AND LICENSE SANCTIONED VIDE LP NO.BBMP /ADDL.DIR/JDSOUTH/0031/19-20 DATED 07.12.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-F, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner-Company is said to be the owner of the property measuring 1,65,958 square feet bearing BBMP Khata Nos.243/254/41, 129/83 and 93 to 101, Jaraganahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. With an intention of putting up multi storied apartment complex, it made the necessary application for plan sanction to respondent Nos.1 and 2. The same was sanctioned on 21.12.2016. It is submitted that a portion of the property of the petitioner is situated within 150 meters of a metro railway station and in respect of the said portion, as on 2016, the petitioner was entitled for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 4. However, the said concession was withdrawn by a notification dated 29.09.2018. Oblivious to the said withdrawal, the petitioner thinking that it is entitled to a FAR of 4 in respect of its land, which comes within the radius of 150 meters of metro station applied for a revised plan seeking the benefit of FAR 4. Respondent No.2-the Joint Director, Town Planning - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 (South), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) being ignorant of the notification dated 29.09.2018, has sanctioned the modified plan as requested by the petitioner on 07.12.2019. The petitioner is said to have put up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and has completed the construction. It is further submitted that partial occupancy certificate was granted on 26.09.2022 in respect of a portion of its property and it has alienated the same. It is further submitted that in respect of other portion of the building, it has entered into agreements with third parties. It is also submitted that the modified plan sanctioned has not been withdrawn till today. When this was the situation, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for issuance of the final occupancy certificate. As the same has not been granted so far, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "i) issue a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith issue occupancy certificate in respect of Tower-D by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 considering the application dated 29.08.2023 at ANNEXURE-J in respect of the project to which modified plan and license sanctioned vide LP No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDSOUTH/0031/19-20 dated 07.12.2019 as per Annexure-F; and ii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their objections. It is submitted that as on the date of the petitioner making the original application for plan sanction in respect of its property which comes within the radius of 150 meters of metro railway station, it was entitled for a FAR of 4. However, it is submitted that concession has been withdrawn by the notification dated 29.09.2018, but by mistake respondent No.2 has sanctioned the modified plan on 07.12.2019, being oblivious to the notification dated 29.09.2018 and as per the original FAR available prior to it. It is submitted that ignorance of law is not an excuse and the petitioner was not entitled for the additional FAR granted to it. It is submitted that the petitioner has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 constructed the building as per the modified plan which is in violation of the notification dated 29.09.2018, and hence, unless the excess construction is removed or the petitioner purchases additional TDR, the same cannot be regularized. Thus, it is submitted that occupancy certificate in favour of the petitioner is not granted. 3. True, there can be no estoppel against a statute. The modified plan sanctioned in favour of the petitioner ought not to have been sanctioned by respondent No.2. However, it appears respondent No.2 by way of a bona fide mistake, being oblivious of the fact that by way of the notification dated 29.09.2018, the additional benefit that the petitioner was entitled to was withdrawn, has sanctioned the plan. Though plan sanction has been done in violation of the notification dated 29.09.2018, the same has not been withdrawn by respondent Nos.1 and 2 till today. They have instead allowed the petitioner to put up construction as per the modified plan. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 4. The contention of the petitioner is that in case the modified plan was not sanctioned, it would not have put up additional construction. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a builder, who is in the business of constructing apartments and after incurring financial debts, it has constructed apartment complex in accordance with the sanctioned plan and it has already entered into agreements in respect of the additional construction and asking the petitioner to demolish a portion of the apartments constructed or forcing it to buy the additional TDR as suggested by the BBMP in order to save the additional construction would be putting it into undue hardship and injury without any fault of it. 5. This is a situation wherein, if the petitioner were to obtain plan sanction before 29.09.2018, the construction as it stands today would have been valid in law. Similarly, even now, if the petitioner is able to purchase additional TDR, construction put up by it, according to respondent Nos.1 and 2 can be regularized. It means that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 the construction put up by the petitioner is not hazardous or causing nuisance to the general public. It is just that the plan which has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for putting up additional construction is in violation of the existing law as on that day due to issuance of the notification dated 29.09.2018. Further, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for construction of the present building in the light of respondent No.2 granting it the necessary modified plan and respondent Nos.1 and 2 not taking any steps to withdraw the same even after a lapse of six years. Presently, the petitioner has constructed the apartment as per the modified plan and has alienated portions of it. Now, asking the petitioner to remove a portion of the building or forcing it to buy additional TDR to regularize the same by incurring extra expenditure would be unjust and unfair. 6. Thus, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to do the needful and grant - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32105 WP No. 3132 of 2025 occupancy certificate to the petitioner in respect of the building constructed by it on the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, if the same is not in violation of the modified sanctioned plan dated 07.12.2019. The same shall be done within a period of thirty days from today. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. It is submitted by the petitioner by virtue of the interim order dated 02.05.2025, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) before this Hon'ble Court. Registry is directed to refund the same to the petitioner after due verification. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101