Bengaluru Buyer’s New Building Plan Leads Karnataka HC To Quash Demolition Order, Though Issued Two Days After Proceedings Began

The petitioner purchased property No. 35/1, South End Road, Malleshwaram, under a sale deed dated 9 November 2017.

A building licence issued to his vendor on 10 August 2016 was valid until 9 August 2018. Proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) were initiated on 4 September 2018 for failure to commence construction under that licence.

The petitioner obtained a separate sanctioned plan and building licence on 6 September 2018 and constructed in accordance with it.

The Tribunal upheld the confirmation order, reasoning that the proceedings had commenced two days before the petitioner received the new sanction.

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court considered Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, under which the municipal authority had acted.

It held that where a person obtains a separate sanctioned plan after the earlier plan has expired, that later sanction is relevant and dispositive to proceedings concerning construction under the earlier plan. The fact that proceedings began before the later plan was issued does not, by itself, justify requiring the construction to be brought down.

The proceedings concerned the failure to commence construction under the vendor’s earlier sanctioned plan, which had expired by the time proceedings began.

The petitioner, however, had obtained a separate sanctioned plan on 6 September 2018 and constructed under that plan.

The Tribunal treated the timing of the proceedings—initiated two days before the new sanction—as decisive, but the Court held that this reasoning could not sustain the order because the later sanction was germane to the legality of the petitioner’s construction.

The Court answered both framed questions in the petitioner’s favour.

The Court quashed both the Tribunal’s order dated 19 August 2026 and the confirmation order dated 29 August 2018.

It clarified that the decision would not prevent further proceedings permitted by law if the petitioner had constructed contrary to the sanctioned plan dated 6 September 2018.