An OC Without Inspection: Karnataka High Court on Raffles Park Villas in Hoskote
The Karnataka High Court on October 6, 2026 upheld the Samethanahalli panchayat's cancellation of occupancy certificates for 33 villas in Raffles Park on Soukya Road, found they were issued without inspection or verification, recalled a 2023 order for suppression of facts, and left the RERA ongoing project question to the regulator. Here is what it means for buyers on Bengaluru's fringe.
Between September 2016 and May 2017, the Samethanahalli Gram Panchayat on Soukya Road, in Hoskote taluk east of Bengaluru, issued occupancy certificates for villas in a project called Raffles Park. On paper, those villas were complete and fit to live in. On October 6, 2026, the Karnataka High Court found that they were not.
In a judgment running to more than 240 pages, the court upheld the panchayat's cancellation of occupancy certificates for thirty three villas, recalled its own 2023 order that had restored them, and found that the developer had withheld material facts. It also left one question squarely for the real estate regulator: whether the project is an "ongoing project" under the RERA Act. For anyone buying a villa or flat in a panchayat area on Bengaluru's fringe, this is a sharp reminder that an occupancy certificate is only as good as the inspection behind it.
The short answer. In Writ Petition No. 3640 of 2023, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the gram panchayat was competent to issue occupancy certificates, but that the certificates dated September 19, 2016 to May 5, 2017 were issued without inspection, verification against the sanctioned plan or technical opinion, that the project was "NOT complete and fit for occupation" when they were issued, and that their cancellation was lawful. The court recalled its December 11, 2023 order for suppression of material facts and ordered the developer to finish pending works within six months. The trade-off: buyers gain a finding they can place before the regulator, but the court decided no individual buyer's claim, so possession, refund or compensation still have to be pursued separately.
What happened at Raffles Park?
The developer, Raffles Residency Private Limited, challenged a panchayat order dated January 10, 2023 withdrawing occupancy certificates. In December 2023 the High Court had quashed that order and restored certificates for villas listed in the order, subject to the premises being put in fit condition within three months.
Two purchasers of a villa in the same project then applied to be impleaded and to recall the December 2023 order. The court allowed both applications. It found that the developer's own letter of May 12, 2017, along with a Rs 100 crore financing arrangement and the chronology of one villa, showed that "material facts bearing directly upon the state of completion and fitness for occupation were withheld." It said an order obtained by suppression of material facts "cannot be permitted to operate to the advantage of the party responsible."
What did the court decide about the occupancy certificates?
The court answered thirteen questions. The key findings for buyers were these. Under the statutory scheme, the competent authority to issue an occupancy certificate for this project was the gram panchayat, not the planning authority, because the state's own affidavits said the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 gives planning authorities no such power. The panchayat had not adopted the 2015 Model Bye-laws, but the court traced its power to Section 64 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
The power existed, but it was not properly used. The court held the certificates "were issued without compliance with the statutory requirements, including inspection, verification of construction against the sanctioned plan, and obtaining the requisite technical opinion." It held the villas and project were not complete and fit for occupation on the dates of issue, and that the certificates "were procured or issued on the basis of misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, and failure of the authorities to undertake the required verification." The cancellation was within jurisdiction and in accordance with natural justice.
How do the findings line up?
| Question | Developer's position | Court's answer |
|---|---|---|
| Who could issue the occupancy certificate? | The gram panchayat | The gram panchayat, under Section 64 of the Panchayat Raj Act |
| Were the certificates issued after proper inspection and verification? | Yes, on the architects' completion certificate | No; issued without inspection, plan verification or technical opinion |
| Was the project complete and fit for occupation? | Substantially complete by 2016, only minor works left | Not complete and fit for occupation on the dates of issue |
| Was the cancellation lawful? | The panchayat had no power to revoke | Within jurisdiction and in accordance with natural justice |
| Is the project an ongoing project under RERA? | No, because certificates predate Section 3 of RERA | Left open for the regulator to decide independently |
What does this mean for RERA and the buyers?
The developer argued that because several certificates were issued before Section 3 of the RERA Act came into force, which it put at May 1, 2017, the project fell outside the act. The purchasers argued that a document called an occupancy certificate cannot take a project out of the "ongoing project" definition if it does not reflect real completion.
The court did not decide. It left the question to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, where proceedings are pending, and said its findings on inadequate verification and actual completion "may be placed before and considered by the Authority." It added two guardrails. The developer "shall not contend" before the authority that the cancellation or any finding in the judgment has decided the RERA question. And the cancellation "shall not by itself be treated as a determination" either way. The purchasers and other allottees are free to place the judgment before the authority and pursue their cases.
The court also protected buyers who were not part of the dispute. The judgment does not affect subsisting occupancy certificates for villas outside the thirty three covered by the December 26, 2022 notice, including Villa Nos. 8 and 53, and those certificates can be questioned only in independent proceedings.
What did the court order next?
The developer must complete pending finishing and infrastructure works in unsold or incomplete villas, including doors, windows, glass facades, electricity connections, internal roads and common infrastructure, within six months, as it undertook in an affidavit of March 12, 2024. It must clear property tax dues on unsold villas and the clubhouse within ninety days. Deviations noticed in joint inspections, including the location of the sewage treatment plant, encroachment on the rajakaluve, incomplete roads and an unmaintained diesel generator, must be examined and rectified or, where permissible, regularised.
Any fresh application to occupy a villa must follow a circular of August 5, 2024, with joint verification with the planning authority, technical opinion, site inspection and photographs. "Permission shall not be granted merely on the basis of a certificate issued by an architect or engineer," the court said. The panchayat must place a proposal to adopt the 2015 Model Bye-laws before its general body within three months, and the state must examine the role of officials who issued the certificates.
Why does the court see a wider problem than one project?
The court said its findings showed "the matter is not limited to the thirty-three villas." They also disclosed "the absence, at the relevant time, of a clear procedure for a Gram Panchayat within a notified Local Planning Area to verify completion before permitting occupation." The panchayat had not adopted the Model Bye-laws, which would have provided a completion certificate procedure under Rule 12 and an occupation procedure under Rule 13.
So the directions reach beyond the developer. The state's rural development department and the panchayat must complete an examination of the role of the officials who issued the certificates without adequate verification and report within three months. The panchayat must examine the conduct of the project architects whose completion certificate "did not reflect the actual condition of the project," and may refer the matter to the Council of Architecture. The principal secretaries for rural development and urban development must keep monitoring, through the state's land management and court case monitoring systems, whether panchayats in notified planning areas adopt the Model Bye-laws and follow the joint inspection circular.
What should buyers in panchayat areas around Bengaluru check?
PropNewz has explained the three certificates a buyer should ask for in our guide to commencement, completion and occupancy certificates, and how approvals differ between BDA, municipal, BMRDA and panchayat areas in our guide to approval authorities.
- Find out which body issued the building licence and the occupancy certificate, and whether the area falls in a notified local planning area.
- Ask whether the panchayat has adopted the 2015 Model Bye-laws.
- Ask whether the occupancy certificate followed a site inspection and joint verification with the planning authority.
- Visit the unit and common areas yourself and compare them with what the certificate says is complete.
- Check whether the project is registered with the Karnataka RERA, or whether the promoter claims an exemption.
- Ask whether any notice to withdraw or cancel an occupancy certificate has been issued for the project.
- Have a lawyer search for writ petitions, RERA complaints and civil suits involving the project before you pay.
Fringe locations such as Soukya Road also host projects like Embassy Millennium; the same checks apply to any project, and this is not a finding about that one. The court made clear that each buyer's own rights, including possession, refund, compensation or specific performance, can be pursued before a civil court, the regulator or another competent forum. Those claims were not decided here.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Karnataka High Court decide in the Raffles Park case?
On October 6, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 3640 of 2023, it upheld the gram panchayat's cancellation of occupancy certificates issued between September 2016 and May 2017 for 33 villas, recalled its December 2023 order for suppression of material facts, and dismissed the developer's petition with consequential directions.
Why were the occupancy certificates cancelled?
The court held they were issued without inspection, verification of construction against the sanctioned plan or technical opinion, that the project was not complete and fit for occupation on the dates of issue, and that they were procured or issued through misrepresentation, suppression of facts and failure of verification.
Is Raffles Park an ongoing project under RERA?
The court did not decide. It left the question to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, allowed its findings on verification and completion to be placed before the authority, and said neither the cancellation nor its findings should be treated as deciding whether the project is or was an ongoing project.
What must the developer do now?
The developer must complete pending finishing and infrastructure works in unsold or incomplete villas within six months, clear property tax on unsold villas and the clubhouse within ninety days, and rectify or regularise deviations. Any fresh occupancy application must follow joint verification, site inspection and technical opinion.
Last updated 2026-11-01. PropNewz Team.
Contact Us
Stay updated with latest news and new projects!
Tell us what you want, We'll do the rest.
Share your budget and where you're looking. An advisor who has actually walked the sites will shortlist a handful of RERA-registered projects and tell you which to skip.