By Deepika Prasad
Founder & Lawyer, Title & Terrain Legal Studio
Introduction
On June 3, 2025, the Government of Karnataka notified the Model Building Bye-Laws under the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (as amended in 2025). A notable change is the introduction of stricter documentation requirements for developments on converted land, including a contentious mandate: “Mandatory registration with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) shall be imposed in the letter of approval of the building plan in the converted lands.”
This article examines the constitutional validity of this mandate and whether Panchayat bye-laws can expand the scope of a central statute such as the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). It also offers a harmonious statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
________________________________________
What RERA Mandates and What It Doesn’t
Under Section 3(2) of RERA, registration of a real estate project is required only if:
• The project is developed on land measuring more than 500 square metres;
• It consists of more than eight apartments; or
• Apartments are offered for sale before obtaining a completion certificate.
This framework exempts small-scale or individual constructions, particularly those that are completed or below the threshold criteria. Moreover, Section 89 of RERA clearly states that the provisions of RERA prevail over any inconsistent laws made by states.
________________________________________
What the Panchayat Bye-Laws Say
The Model Building Bye-Laws, 2025 under Government Notification No. RDP 26 GPA 2025, in clause 4, in sub section (d) after item (xiv), following shall be inserted, namely: (xv)“Mandatory registration with Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) shall be imposed in the letter of approval of the building plan in the converted lands.”
However, the language here is ambiguous, it does not clarify whether this applies only to RERA-covered projects (as per Section 3 of the central Act) or to all constructions on converted land regardless of their scale or purpose.
________________________________________
The Legal Conflict
(a) Valid Procedural Measures
Other elements introduced by the amended bye-laws such as requiring a completion letter from the Local Planning Authority or a joint site inspection by the Panchayat Development Officer and technical officers fall well within the Panchayat’s administrative powers. These procedural mechanisms do not conflict with RERA.
(b) Overreach in Mandating RERA Registration
The issue arises when Panchayats interpret the bye-law as requiring RERA registration for every construction on converted land, including those expressly exempted under Section 3(2) of RERA. Such an interpretation rewrites the thresholds set by Parliament and creates a direct conflict.
Since RERA is a central law enacted under the Concurrent List, any inconsistency triggers the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254(1) of the Constitution, wherein the central law prevails and the state law (or subordinate rule) becomes void to the extent of conflict.
________________________________________
Interpretation Note: Harmonising the Bye-Laws with RERA
Despite the broad wording, the clause on mandatory RERA registration can and must be interpreted harmoniously with the central statute. The only constitutionally valid reading is that ‘RERA registration shall be required in the Panchayat’s approval process only for projects that are already mandated to register under Section 3(2) of RERA’.
Any interpretation that extends this mandate to all constructions on converted land irrespective of area, unit count or sale would be ultra vires. Panchayats cannot expand the scope of a central law or bypass its exemptions through subordinate legislation.
________________________________________
Practical Implications for Developers & Landowners
|
Scenario |
RERA Requirement (Central Law) |
Panchayat Bye-Laws (2025) |
|
1 house on 400 m² converted land |
Not required |
Likely required (if read broadly) |
|
10-unit apartment on 800 m² |
Required |
Required |
|
300 m² home sold post-completion |
Not required |
Likely required (if read broadly) |
This misalignment forces small plot owners or rural developers to undergo RERA registration procedures simply to secure Panchayat plan approval, even when RERA itself grants exemptions.
________________________________________
Why the Distinction Matters
There is a fundamental difference between:
• Requiring proof of RERA registration where it applies, versus
• Imposing RERA registration where the project is exempt under Section 3(2).
The latter interpretation contradicts RERA and could be constitutionally invalid.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The Model Building Bye-Laws, 2025 represent a progressive shift toward improved rural construction oversight. However, if interpreted as imposing blanket RERA registration for all converted land projects, they exceed the constitutional limits of Panchayat rule making powers.
A harmonious interpretation would limit this mandate only to projects that already fall under Section 3(2) of RERA. The State Government should issue clarificatory guidelines distinguishing between:
• Projects where RERA registration is legally required, and
• Projects that merely need to show proof of exemption.
Without clarification, this grey area could lead to avoidable litigation, inconsistent approvals and undue compliance burden on rural developers defeating the very objective of ease of doing real estate.