The Line Between Akrama & Sakrama — Analyzing The Political And Legal Contours Of Regularising Illegal Property In Karnataka
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 2
- 2 min read
Tanish Neeraj & Saanvi Manjunath, OP Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
The paper critically examines the Akrama–Sakrama scheme introduced by the Government of Karnataka as a legislative mechanism to regularise unauthorised constructions in urban areas. Against the backdrop of rapid urbanisation and a parallel rise in informal housing across Indian cities, the state initiated this scheme through the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules, 2014. While supposedly framed as a means to integrate informal settlements into the formal urban fabric, the scheme has generated significant legal and constitutional contestation. The authors analyse the scheme’s validity by tracing the jurisprudence around State led regularisation policies. The Public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the scheme argued that it unfairly rewarded lawbreakers while penalising law-abiding citizens and violated the right to a clean and safe environment. The authors assess judicial pronouncements, including the Karnataka High Court’s upholding of the scheme and the Supreme Court’s subsequent stay in Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2017), highlighting the ongoing legal uncertainty regarding its implementation. This paper situates the Akrama– Sakrama scheme within the broader legal doctrine that treats regularisation as a narrow exception rather than a policy norm. Citing key precedents such as Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu and Royal Paradise Hotel v. State of Haryana, the paper argues that regularisation must be a rare exception and not a policy norm. The analysis further reveals that the 2014 Rules fail to distinguish between bona fide purchasers and deliberate violators, thereby eroding the moral and legal basis for selective leniency.
In response to judicial intervention, the Government of Karnataka has promoted B-Khata certificates as an alternative mechanism to collect property taxes without conferring legal title. The paper critically evaluates this workaround and argues that it perpetuates legal ambiguity. B-Khata certificates, while facilitating revenue collection, are incompatible and inconsistent with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as they confer neither ownership rights nor transferable title. The result is a legal grey zone and public misconception about rights and protections. B-Khata property leaves owners in a vulnerable position, holding what appears to be a legal document, but in substance is just a revenue document. The authors argue for judicial discretion and case-by-case adjudication over legislative amnesties and urge for a more equitable, and constitutionally sound approach to regularisation.
