Karnataka REAT: Revised Plan Attached to Sale Deed Is Not Buyers' Informed Consent

When a homebuyer in SJR Palazza City at Doddakannali signed his agreements on 24 June 2013, the project's sanctioned plan, dated 2 April 2013, showed a park in an area of the project land. A revised plan approved on 22 May 2019 showed a commercial complex of 9,006.17 square metres in that space, with two basements, a ground floor and nine upper floors. The buyer says he learnt of it in February 2024, when the homeowners' association circulated it. On 27 October 2026, the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ruled that attaching a copy of a revised plan to a sale deed is not the buyers' informed consent.

The ruling, in Amit Garg v. SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited & Another, Appeal No. (K-REAT) 64 of 2026, was delivered by Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. We read the tribunal's order, published with a LiveLaw report on 29 October 2026. This guide explains the ruling and what Bengaluru buyers should check when a builder's plans change. It is buyer guidance on a reported order, not legal advice.

The short answer. The tribunal held that "Mere enclosing of copy of the Revised Plan to the Sale Deed cannot be taken as informed consent" and that the promoter ought to have taken prior written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees before commercial development. It directed the developer to obtain that consent within 60 days, restrained construction deviating from the original 2013 plan until consent is obtained and submitted, and said that if consent is not obtained the developer must build to the original plan, with the BDA at liberty to cancel the revised plan. The trade-off: the two-thirds rule protects common areas, but it depends on owners acting together, so an association that does not track plan changes can lose years.

What did the Karnataka REAT decide?

It set aside K-RERA's dismissal and partly allowed the buyer's complaint. The tribunal's order sets aside K-RERA's order dated 13 April 2026 in Complaint No. 00735/2025, which had dismissed the complaint. In its operative order, the tribunal directed the promoter to obtain the consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees within 60 days from the date of the order before proceeding with construction under the revised sanctioned plan.

It also restrained the promoter from any further construction in deviation from the original sanctioned plan dated 2 April 2013 until it obtains the written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees and submits it to the sanctioning authority. If the promoter fails to obtain that consent in time, the order says it shall complete construction in accordance with the original plan, and the BDA shall be at liberty to cancel the revised plan dated 22 May 2019. No costs were ordered.

What does Section 14 say about plan changes?

That alterations need consent. The tribunal's order sets out the rule that, once the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications approved by the competent authority are disclosed or furnished to a buyer, the promoter shall not make additions and alterations without the previous consent of that person, or without the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees. The order records that the promoter had admittedly not taken previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, and was instead relying on the claim that allottees had been informed.

Our earlier guide to Section 14(2) and the two-thirds consent rule explains the provision in more detail.

Why was attaching the revised plan to the sale deed not enough?

Because buyers were not adequately told what was changing or where. The tribunal found that the original plan did not provide for a commercial establishment, while the revised plan showed one in the place earmarked for a park. It said this was a violation of the allottee's right to enjoy the amenities provided as per the sanctioned plan, layout, plans and specifications disclosed at the time of the agreement for sale and sale deed. According to the LiveLaw report, it rejected the developer's reliance on general consent clauses in the sale documents.

The tribunal also distinguished the proposed complex from clubhouse amenities such as a daycare centre, food court, beauty parlour and laundry, as the report notes. In other words, calling a large commercial building an amenity did not turn it into one.

How did the dispute unfold?

Over more than a decade. The table sets out the main dates from the order and the report.

According to the report, the buyer took possession in July 2020 and alleged that construction began in September 2020 without advance notice to homebuyers. He learnt of the revised plan in February 2024 after the homeowners' association circulated it, and homeowners then asked the BDA to revoke it.

What did the developer argue?

That buyers had agreed in advance. As recorded in the tribunal's order, the promoter's case was that, under the joint development agreement, it had reserved an undeveloped portion for a commercial complex of retail and office space, that the project's Deed of Declaration dated 16 October 2018 reflected this, and that 175 car parking spaces were demarcated for the commercial establishment and retained by the builder. It said the revised plan of 22 May 2019 only marked the area reserved for the commercial establishment, that the BDA issued a partial occupancy certificate on 30 May 2019, and that buyers signed sale deeds and Form B of the Deed of Declaration consenting to future development.

The promoter also argued that the complaint was premature because there was then no commercial building, and that under the Explanation to Rule 4(2)(a) of the Karnataka RERA Rules, 2017, two-thirds consent was not required. The tribunal did not accept that general clauses of this kind amounted to informed consent to a commercial complex in the park area.

Why did the tribunal say K-RERA had jurisdiction?

Because the authority could have granted relief and used local bodies to enforce it. The order says K-RERA erred in simply dismissing the complaints by holding that it did not have jurisdiction to grant equitable reliefs, and observes that, in the absence of a mechanism to execute such an order, the authority can take the assistance of the concerned local bodies. Having found that the promoter attempted to construct a commercial complex in the area reserved for park and civic amenities without the required consent, the tribunal held the complainant was entitled to relief.

For buyers, that is significant. A complaint about a changed plan is not automatically outside K-RERA's reach because it asks for a stop to construction rather than money.

What should Bengaluru buyers check when plans change?

The sanctioned plan you were given, and every revision after it. Keep the copy of the plan furnished at the time of your agreement for sale, and compare any later plan with it, looking especially at parks, open spaces and civic amenity areas. If a revised plan appears in your sale deed annexures, do not assume that signing the deed was consent to every change in it; this order says a copy enclosed with the sale deed is not informed consent.

Act through your association where you can. The two-thirds rule makes allottees as a group the decision makers, so an association that tracks sanctions and responds quickly is better placed than individual owners. For a related Bengaluru ruling on what happens when a builder takes money without signing the agreement at all, see our report on the K-RERA compensation order against Casagrand Lotus.

A seven-point checklist when your project's plan changes

1. Keep the sanctioned plan and layout furnished to you with your agreement for sale.
2. Ask the developer in writing whether any revised plan has been sought or approved.
3. Compare any revised plan with the original, especially parks, open spaces and amenity areas.
4. Read every annexure to your sale deed before signing, and note any revised plan attached.
5. Do not treat signing a sale deed as consent to changes you were not clearly told about.
6. Work with your association to record whether two-thirds written consent was ever sought.
7. If construction departs from the plan you were given, take advice on a complaint to K-RERA promptly.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka REAT decide in the SJR Prime case?

On 27 October 2026, the tribunal set aside K-RERA's dismissal and directed SJR Prime to obtain the consent of at least two-thirds of allottees within 60 days before building under the revised plan, restraining construction deviating from the original 2 April 2013 plan until that consent is submitted.

Is a revised plan attached to my sale deed the same as consent?

Not according to this order. The tribunal held that mere enclosing of a copy of the revised plan to the sale deed cannot be taken as informed consent, and that the promoter ought to have taken prior written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees.

What happens if the developer does not get two-thirds consent?

The order says the promoter shall then complete construction in accordance with the original sanctioned plan dated 2 April 2013, and that the BDA, as the sanctioning authority, shall be at liberty to cancel the revised sanctioned plan dated 22 May 2019.

Can K-RERA hear a complaint asking to stop construction?

In this case the tribunal said K-RERA erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, observing that the authority can take the assistance of the concerned local bodies to execute such an order where it lacks its own mechanism.

Last updated 2026-11-04. PropNewz Team.