Land On Which Apartment Stands Becomes Common Property By Operation Of Law: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court said that once a building is constructed and apartments are sold conveying undivided interests, the entire land on which the apartment complex stands becomes common property under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972.
Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by an apartment owners’ association and quashed the building plan approval granted by the municipal authority for new construction on a portion of the residential layout, while observing that the entire property had vested with the apartment owners collectively by operation of law and statutory declaration, and could not be subject to further private development.
A Single Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda observed, “These two factors by themselves, read in the context of the definition of common areas under Section 3(f)(1) of the Act, leave no room for doubt that the entire land, on which the apartment building was to be put up as per the approval granted by the Planning Authority, would have to be considered as the common area.”
The Court added, “Even if it is assumed that the plan did indicate that an extent of 1104.40 sq.mtr. had been retained for future development by the land owners, by virtue of the fact that after the plan was approved, the property was conveyed by the erstwhile land owners in favour of the apartment owners, the ownership of the entire property stood transferred collectively to the apartment owners.”
Advocate Beena P.K. appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Sammith S. represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, a registered apartment owners’ association, challenged the legality of a building plan approval granted by the municipal authority to a group of former landowners. The impugned plan permitted construction of a new apartment block on 990.54 square metres of land, which had been reserved in the original sanctioned layout plan for utilities such as a sewage treatment plant (STP) and rainwater harvesting unit (RWHU).
It was the Petitioner’s case that the land in question formed part of the common area of the apartment project and had already been conveyed to purchasers through registered sale deeds. A registered deed of declaration under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 had also included the full layout extent, including the disputed portion, as part of the common property.
The Respondent landowners contended that this specific parcel had been retained by them for future development and that the approval granted for new construction was valid.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court framed the issue as whether any portion of the property, once included in registered sale deeds conveying undivided shares and in the declaration under the 1972 Act, could still be claimed by the original landowners for independent construction.
Referring to the relevant statutory provisions, the Court noted, “As could be seen from Section 3(f)(1) of the Act, if a deed of declaration has been executed by the apartment owners and the provisions of the Act No.17 of 1973 are made applicable, a common area would mean the land on which the building is located. Thus, in law, the entire land on which the building is located becomes a common area.”
The Court noted that the registered sale deeds and the declaration filed under the Act made it clear that the entire extent of 2,35,224 square feet was part of the residential project. Purchasers were given undivided shares in the entire land, including the portion now sought to be separately developed.
Rejecting the argument that a reservation for future development preserved the rights of the former landowners, the Court observed, “Even if it is assumed that the plan did indicate that an extent of 1104.40 sq.mtr. had been retained for future development by the land owners… the ownership of the entire property stood transferred collectively to the apartment owners.”
The Bench held that the grant of approval by the BBMP to build a new apartment complex would be wholly illegal.
The High Court observed that the entire extent of land measuring 2,35,224 sq. ft. on which the apartment complex stood had become common property of the apartment owners, by operation of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and through the sale deeds and registered declaration. It held that the Respondent landowners had no legal right to independently develop any portion of that land, including the part shown in the original plan as reserved for future development.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the building plan approval granted by the municipal authority for new construction on the disputed portion and allowed the writ petition filed by the apartment owners’ association.
Cause Title: Keerthi Harmony v. M/s Keerthi Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:17184)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Beena P.K.
Respondents: Advocates Sammith S., K.S. Mallikarjuna Reddy, M. Ramachandra Reddy, K.Krishne
