Deviations and Akrama-Sakrama

A deviation is simply a gap between what was approved and what was built: an extra floor, a thinner setback, more floor area than the sanctioned plan allowed. Almost every older building in Bengaluru has some deviation somewhere, and not every deviation is a disaster. What matters to a buyer is which kind it is, whether the law lets it be fixed, and what happens to a flat while it cannot be.

Bengaluru actually runs two different answers to “can this be regularised”. One is narrow and built into the ordinary approval process: a small, fee-based tolerance any new building can use. The other is a much bigger one-off amnesty, commonly called Akrama-Sakrama, aimed at older buildings – and it has spent most of the past decade stuck in court. This guide sets out both, what a deviation actually does to a flat you are buying, and how to spot one before you sign anything.

What counts as a deviation

The law does not treat every mismatch between plan and building the same way. The Greater Bengaluru Governance Act calls it a “continuing violation” whenever construction is “unauthorized and otherwise than in accordance with the sanctioned plan”, until it is either regularised or demolished (s.243(1)). In practice that covers a handful of recurring categories.

Change of land use – farmland built on without conversion, or a residential plot used commercially – is a related but separate problem, since it sits with the conversion order rather than the building plan. Our guide to every document behind a flat covers conversion and the sanctioned plan themselves; this guide is about what happens once the two stop matching.

The GBG Act on deviations

Karnataka’s current law builds a small tolerance into the ordinary approval process, and treats everything past it as something to demolish, not merely fine. At the plinth stage, a deviation that is still within the permissible limits can simply go onto a modified plan and construction continues (s.239(1)(d)). At the occupancy stage the same idea appears again, but capped hard: “the condonable limits shall not be more than ten percent of the permissible limits, and also the compounding fee as notified under this chapter shall be paid to the Corporation” (s.241(4)). Building without any sanctioned plan at all can even be compounded for a fee, provided what was actually built otherwise complies with the rules (s.230(7)).

Beyond that limit, the Act is explicit that the cost falls on the owner: “the violated portion of the building shall be demolished by the khatadar or promoter at his own cost and risk” (s.246(2)). The process itself has teeth. The Commissioner can seal an unlawful building before or after a demolition order (s.243(4)), and where an owner neither demolishes nor pays the compounding fee in time, the Commissioner “may file a criminal complaint against such a person, and shall himself cause the building or structure or part thereof demolished and the expenses thereof shall be recovered from the khatadar as if it were an arrears of property tax” (s.243(3) (f)). Even the officials are on the hook: a jurisdictional officer who fails to prevent an unauthorised deviation in their own area “shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed” (s.247). And banks are told, in the same Act, not to help fund what should not exist: “the financial institutions shall not extend loan facilities for constructions carried out in violation of the sanctioned plans” (s.246(4)).

Akrama-Sakrama’s legal basis

Separate from that ordinary 10% tolerance, Karnataka has also run a much bigger amnesty for older, already-built deviations, commonly called Akrama-Sakrama. Its legal basis sits in three linked amendments: section 76FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and parallel sections inserted into the state’s two other planning laws – section 321-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and section 187-A of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Section 76FF lets a planning authority regularise development or a change of land use made “prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013” – 19 October 2013 – on payment of a fee that rises with how far the building overshoots the rules: “six percent of the market value… if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio does not exceed twenty five percent”, rising to eight percent up to 50%, with higher bands again for non-residential buildings.

The scheme is narrower than it might sound. Section 76FF rules out basement violations and any regularisation on land needed for roads, government use, parks, storm drains or coastal zones; caps setback and FAR violations at 50% for residential buildings and 25% for non-residential ones beyond which nothing is regularisable at all; and demands a structural engineer’s certificate for any building of more than two floors before its violation can be waived. These limits are close to identical to the ones the newer Greater Bengaluru Governance Act now applies inside the city, which is not a coincidence: the current Act’s own regularisation power, at section 249, was built on the same template.

Courts, and where it stands

Akrama-Sakrama has spent longer being litigated than being applied. A batch of writ petitions filed in 2015, including WP 8895/2015, argued the scheme was unconstitutional because it rewarded people who broke building rules over those who followed them. The Karnataka High Court disagreed: on 13 December 2016 it dismissed the challenge and upheld the scheme as constitutional. Opponents, including Namma Bengaluru Foundation, then took the fight to the Supreme Court. That appeal – SLP (C) Nos. 11077-11078 of 2017 – is still pending, and its interim order has kept the scheme itself frozen ever since: a Karnataka High Court judgment as recent as 15 June 2026, in an unrelated case about Premium FAR, records the Akrama-Sakrama scheme as “the subject matter of a challenge pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.11077-11078/2017” and treats it as still stayed. In practice, that means an application under the old scheme is not currently being processed, whatever a seller or an agent may say.

That newer route is worth spelling out, because it is not affected by the stay. Section 249 lets a City Corporation “regularise building constructed at least one year prior to the date of notification of this Act”, on the same setback and FAR bands as the old scheme, with the fee credited to an “urban areas infrastructure Development fund” rather than general revenue. It even lets an owner use Premium FAR or a Development Rights Certificate under the KTCP Act to cover the built-up-area part of a violation. The June 2026 judgment squarely rejected the argument that Premium FAR is itself a backdoor Akrama-Sakrama, finding the two schemes have “completely different” substance: one buys extra, lawful floor area up front; the other forgives floor area already built without it. Whether section 249 will end up as settled and uncontroversial as Premium FAR is not something this guide can tell you; what it does say, on the Act’s own text, is that it is the current, un-stayed regularisation route for Greater Bengaluru, and the old KTCP-Act scheme is not.

How a deviation hits you

None of this is abstract once you are the one buying the flat. A deviation beyond the condonable limit means no OC, and everything an OC unlocks – a permanent BESCOM or BWSSB connection, a bank willing to lend against the building, a route to GST-free payment once a completion certificate exists – stays out of reach with it.

It also follows the building into its khata. When the corporation inspects a new building against its sanctioned plan, “where it matches, the final khata follows; where the building breaks the rules, it gets a B-khata instead”, as our khata guide explains. A B-khata is not itself proof of an unresolved deviation – plenty of B-khata properties simply sit on unconverted or unapproved-layout land – but a deviation is one of the more common reasons a flat carries one, and a B-khata brings its own limits on registration and lending regardless of the cause.

And the GBG Act is explicit that lenders should not be financing the problem either: “the financial institutions shall not extend loan facilities for constructions carried out in violation of the sanctioned plans” (s.246(4)). A bank that does its own diligence properly may simply decline to lend against a flat with an unresolved deviation, which narrows your buyer pool if you are ever the one selling it on.

How to spot a deviation

You do not need an engineer’s eye to check the basics, only the sanctioned plan and a walk around the building. The plan itself is a public document: the Act requires it to be “stored and maintained either in physical or electronic form” and “published in the website of the City Corporation” (s.230(11)). Our who approved the building guide sets out which authority actually holds that record for a given address, and how to check it online rather than take a builder or seller’s word for it.

With the sanctioned plan in hand, three comparisons cover most of what actually goes wrong:

• Count the floors. Compare what is standing against the number of storeys the plan shows, including any rooftop structure that might not read as a “floor” at a glance.
• Pace out the setbacks. The gap between the building and the boundary or road should roughly match the margins on the plan; a wall that runs hard up against a neighbouring property or the road is worth asking about.
• Ask for the as-built plan. At the OC stage the builder’s own architect or engineer certifies “as-built floor plans and completion report… that the building has been constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plans” (s.241(2)). That document, not the original marketing brochure, is the one to compare against what you see on site, and our handover and snag list guide covers what else to collect at the same time.

On an older building bought resale, also ask directly whether any part of it was ever regularised, under either route, and ask to see the paperwork rather than take a verbal yes.

Red flags

• A structure on site that is not on the sanctioned plan. An extra floor, an enclosed balcony or a rooftop room that does not appear on the plan you were shown is the clearest sign of an unresolved deviation.
• A B-khata with no explanation. Ask specifically whether it traces to a building deviation, an unconverted plot or an unapproved layout – they are different problems with different fixes.
• A “temporary” utility connection well after possession. A permanent BESCOM or BWSSB connection needs an OC; a temporary one that has run for months, or years, is a sign one was never obtained.
• Anyone mentioning an Akrama-Sakrama application “in process”. The scheme itself has been stayed by the Supreme Court since 2017; nothing filed under it is currently being processed, whatever the date on the application.
• No structural stability certificate for a building of more than two floors that has clearly had additions made to it.

Before you buy

• Get the sanctioned plan from the corporation’s own record, not only from the builder or seller.
• Count floors and pace out setbacks against that plan, on site.
• Ask for the as-built plan and completion report the OC application was actually granted on.
• Check the khata, and ask directly if a B-khata traces to a building deviation.
• Ask whether any deviation was ever regularised, under section 249 or the older scheme, and ask to see the paperwork.
• Do not rely on an Akrama-Sakrama application “in process”; the scheme has been stayed by the Supreme Court since 2017.
• Confirm your bank will lend against the specific building before you pay anything non-refundable.