Real Estate Quarterly Milestones (April-June 2026)

On 5 June 2026, the Karnataka government issued a notification (OC Notification),¹ providing a one-time exemption from the requirement to obtain an occupancy certificate (OC) for eligible residential buildings within the jurisdiction of the five city corporations under the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). The exemption applies to buildings constructed on plots of up to 2,400 square feet (with a permissible variance of up to 20%) and having a maximum height of ground plus three floors or stilt plus four floors. The OC Notification expands the coverage of the earlier one-time exemption issued on 13 October 2025, which was restricted to residential buildings on plots of up to 1,200 square feet with a maximum height of ground plus two floors or stilt plus three floors.

The 2026 exemption is subject to the following conditions:

1. the building must be complete in all respects;
2. an electricity connection application must have been submitted on or before 31 May 2026; and
3. prior to release of the electricity connection, the supply company must carry out a spot inspection of the building and place a photograph of the building on record.

The exemption does not dispense with the requirement of an approved building plan, and buildings constructed without a sanctioned plan or on B Khata² properties remain outside the scope of the OC Notification.

In a recent decision, the Karnataka High Court held that once land is included within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) or the GBA, the revenue authorities cease to have jurisdiction and cannot take action under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (KLR Act).³ The Court clarified that the position does not change even if such land continues to be shown as agricultural in the revenue records pending formal conversion. Historically, the revenue authorities have routinely invoked Section 192A of the KLR Act to proceed against unauthorised occupation of unconverted agricultural land within municipal limits.

This case arose from a batch of intra-court writ appeals concerning lands in Kenchenahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, which had been included within BBMP limits pursuant to a 2007 gazette notification issued by the Government of Karnataka. The Tahsildar had issued eviction and encroachment removal orders under Section 192A of the KLR Act in 2023 on the ground that the lands were being used illegally for non-agricultural purposes and remained unconverted. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the inclusion of the lands within BBMP’s jurisdiction in 2007 had divested the revenue authorities of any power to act under the KLR Act. The Court rejected the contention that residuary jurisdiction survived merely because the lands remained unconverted.

The ruling draws a clear jurisdictional line between the revenue authorities and the municipal authority in respect of lands that stand included within the BBMP or GBA limits.

In M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and others,⁴ the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court struck down Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908 (Registration Act), in its application to Tamil Nadu, as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Section 34-C had been inserted by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2026 (T.N. Act 1 of 2026) and required the registering officer, before registering any document relating to immovable property, to insist on the production of the previous original title deed and to satisfy himself as to the executant’s title. Pursuant to this judgment, registration can no longer be refused on the specific grounds introduced by Section 34-C, including for non-production of original title deeds to the sub-registrar.

The High Court held that Section 34-C is, in substance, a re-enactment of Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1949, which had previously been struck down by the Madras High Court in Federal Bank v Sub-Registrar⁵ and by the Supreme Court of India in Gopi v Sub-Registrar.⁶ Relying on these earlier decisions, the High Court struck down Section 34-C.

The Court held that a registering officer under the Registration Act discharges ministerial functions and cannot be vested with adjudicatory power to determine title. It also found that Section 34-C of the Registration Act violated the doctrine of separation of powers (which forms part of our basic constitutional structure) and Article 14 of the Constitution by imposing arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the right to deal with property which is protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution.