BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has determined that the regulations applicable to building plan approvals are those in effect at the time of sanction, not at the initial application submission.
A single-judge bench, led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, dismissed a writ petition filed by a property developer who contested the rejection of his building plan by municipal authorities. The developer asserted that his application should adhere to the norms that existed prior to subsequent amendments to the building by-laws.
The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the mere act of applying does not confer any vested rights to the applicant. “The rights of the applicant materialize only when the competent authority grants approval for the building plan,” the court stated. Justice Govindaraj emphasized that if officials were obligated to follow regulations in effect at the time of application, it could create administrative chaos and potential misuse as applicants might resist compliance by referencing outdated rules.
The bench further emphasized that the planning authority has a legal duty to ensure that all construction proposals meet the rules and zoning regulations in place when the plan is sanctioned. “The law must evolve and cannot remain static to the detriment of public interest. Urban planning should reflect current policies and regulations,” the court noted.
The judgment stressed that building permissions serve not just as procedural approvals but as tools for promoting orderly urban development. “Relying on outdated standards would undermine the objectives of subsequent amendments aimed at enhancing safety, environmental quality, and community amenities,” the order indicated.
Consequently, the court upheld the municipal body’s decision to deny the petitioner’s plan because it contravened provisions established by later amendments to the building by-laws. This ruling reinforces the notion that applicants must comply with contemporary regulations at the time of final approval, ensuring alignment with changing urban governance standards.
Legal experts suggest that this ruling may have significant ramifications for developers and property owners throughout the state, particularly in rapidly growing urban regions where building regulations frequently change to meet evolving infrastructure and environmental demands.
