Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 27 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: H.M. Tambourine Apartment Owners Association (appellant) vs. Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Pedigree Constructions Pvt Ltd (developer), H.M. Infra Tech Pvt Ltd, and Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) (respondents).
  • Background: Developer entered a Joint Development Agreement on 19‑08‑2003 to build a residential complex (“A” Block) of 241 apartments on 3 acres 20.18 guntas (13,962 sq m) at Sy.No.28, Kanakapura Road. Occupancy Certificate for “A” Block was issued on 29‑04‑2006.
  • In 2016 the BDA issued a Modified Sanction Plan (24‑06‑2016) for a fifth tower (“B” Block) of 120 apartments on the vacant portion of the same plot.
  • The association challenged the modified plan, alleging that the developer was encroaching on common amenities and exceeding permissible FAR.
  • Lower court dismissed the writ petition on the basis of BDA’s affidavit stating compliance with Regulation 3.6 of the Revised Master Plan 2015.
  • The High Court heard extensive affidavits (appellant 17‑12‑2025, developer 28‑01‑2026, BDA 13‑02‑2026, 18‑03‑2026, 22‑07‑2026) covering land extent, FAR calculations, ground‑coverage, common‑area rights, and the legality of using the entire plot for FAR computation.
  • Key figures disclosed:
  • Total land: 13,962 sq m (3 acres 20.18 guntas).
  • Permissible FAR: 2.00; actual FAR utilized for “A” Block: 1.827.
  • Ground‑coverage used: 19.31% (permissible 60%).
  • Super‑built‑up area of “A” Block: 18,33,182.05 sq ft; built‑up area: 17,76,706.25 sq ft; common area: 56,680.05 sq ft; undivided share per owner: 1,15,464.82 sq ft.
  • BDA’s later affidavit claimed total eligible floor area for 3 acres at 3 FAR = 41,886 sq m; sanctioned floor area for “B” Block = 39,103.86 sq m (2.8 FAR) without deducting the already‑built portion.
  • The court examined statutory provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, particularly Section 7 (no alteration without owners’ consent) and Section 14 (developer cannot alter structure without consent).
  • The court noted that the vacant land was shown as “unused/vacant” in the original plan and that owners had, through the sale deeds, agreed not to object to future construction on that land.
  • However, the court questioned whether the entire plot could be considered for FAR calculation without owners’ consent.

Final Outcome

  • The court held that the construction of “B” Block is not per se illegal.
  • It directed the developer to regularise any excess FAR by purchasing transferable development rights (TDR) as communicated by the GBA/BDA within one month; payment to be made within two months of such communication.
  • The court ordered that common facilities of “A” Block (e.g., swimming pool, clubhouse, gym) shall not be shared with “B” Block residents; separate amenities must be provided for “B” Block (as affirmed by the managing director of H.M. Infra Tech).
  • The court restrained the developer from physically connecting the new “B” Block with the existing “A” Block complex.
  • The BDA was instructed to issue a clarificatory circular (issued 15‑07‑2026) stating that future modified plans must exclude land already covered by an occupancy certificate from FAR calculations and must not alter public spaces or common amenities.
  • All pending interim applications were dismissed as disposed of.

Topics: Real Estate Development, FAR Regulation, Court Judgment