The Builder Is Adding Floors and Our Undivided Share of Land Is Shrinking: The Two-Thirds Consent Rule Under Section 14(2)

The builder needs the written consent of two-thirds of the buyers in your building before adding floors, unless the floors were disclosed to you when you booked or, on the Karnataka tribunal's reading, your agreement for sale permitted them. That is the effect of Section 14(2)(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which, once the sanctioned plans have been disclosed to you, bars any other alterations or additions to the sanctioned plans of the buildings or the common areas without the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, other than the promoter, who have agreed to take apartments in that building, and an extra floor can never pass as a minor change. K-RERA and the Karnataka appellate tribunal have held that consent is needed only for changes beyond what the agreement already permits, so in Bengaluru the clause you signed matters as much as the section. Your undivided share of land is a separate entitlement, and where your agreement states it as a figure, a Telangana order of October 2026 held that a general right to build more floors does not let the builder give you less without paying the difference.

Part of the RERA and homebuyer disputes practice at S Jain & Attorneys, Bangalore.

This page is for buyers in an under-construction, RERA-registered Bengaluru project who have learned of a revised plan adding floors or another block, and who see the undivided share of land in the agreement or the draft sale deed falling. A two-thirds consent for handing the project to a new promoter is the separate one in Section 15, covered in our guide on consent for a new promoter.

Five versions of "adding floors", and how the 2026 orders answered each:

Does the builder need our consent to add floors after we booked?

Yes, in most cases, and the requirement comes from the statute. Section 14(1) requires the project to be developed and completed in accordance with the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications approved by the competent authorities. Section 14(2) opens with the words "notwithstanding anything contained in any law, contract or agreement" and applies once those plans, and the nature of the fixtures, fittings, amenities and common areas, have been disclosed or furnished to the person who agrees to take an apartment. From that point it works in two layers.

Clause (i) protects your own apartment, whose plans and specifications cannot be altered without your previous consent. Its proviso allows minor changes that you ask for, or that an authorised architect or engineer certifies as needed for architectural and structural reasons, after declaration and intimation to you. The Explanation shuts the door on extra floors, because minor alterations exclude structural change including an addition to the area or a change in height, the removal of part of a building, or cutting into walls, columns, beams or floors. Clause (ii) covers every other alteration or addition to the plans and specifications of the buildings or the common areas within the project, needs the two-thirds written consent described above, and has no exception for minor changes at all. The land under the building is itself a common area, since Section 2(n)(i) includes the entire land for the project, or for the phase where a phase is registered separately.

Four rules decide whether a revision is lawful without you:

Who counts in the two-thirds, and must the builder prove he obtained it?

The count is of the allottees, other than the promoter, who have agreed to take apartments in the building being altered, and the Explanation to clause (ii) treats an allottee as one person however many apartments are booked by him or in his family's name, or, for a company, in the names of its associated entities. Section 15 uses the same rule, and the checks on a consent drive are in our guide on consent for a new promoter. Do not take the builder's word for the number.

Rulings from other States show where the burden sits and what consent has to look like. In Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP, T.A. No. 35 of 2024, decided on 9 September 2026, the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal held that once a buyer alleged that no consent had been taken, it was for the promoter to substantiate whether it had, and found the promoter liable for not taking two-thirds consent before obtaining the revised sanctioned plan. In the Parshvadhara judgment of 7 September 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal said that to obtain consent a promoter must ask the flat owners for permission and reveal the nature of the proposed alterations or additional structures, since without that the owners cannot know what they are consenting to. On that reading, a form approving "revisions as may be required" is not informed consent.

Our agreement says the builder may add floors. Is that our consent?

In Karnataka it may well be. In Appeal No. (K-REAT) 17/2024, decided on 26 November 2025, the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's Neelkamal Realtors judgment, which it read as holding that RERA does not override contractual terms validly agreed unless they are inconsistent with the Act's object or public interest. It held that where the registered agreement for sale itself permits modifications and the allottees consented to those terms in advance, making them does not violate Section 14(2)(ii), and that two-thirds consent arises only for an alteration beyond what was mutually agreed. K-RERA applied that passage in April 2026, and the tribunal in August 2026 relied on agreements reserving the right to "add additional floors, increase or decrease building-height".

The other reading starts from the non-obstante words at the head of Section 14(2). The Maharashtra tribunal held twice in September 2026 that a blanket consent written into the agreement is not informed consent under Section 14, and in the RA Residences judgment that a statutory obligation overrides contractual clauses. K-RERA's own proforma agreement for sale leans the same way. Its clause 17, headed Additional Constructions, records that the promoter has no right to make additions or put up additional structures anywhere in the project after the plans have been approved and disclosed, except as provided in the Act, and a note at its head requires promoters to highlight every insertion, modification, deletion and additional clause when they submit their agreement with the application for registration. Set your agreement beside the proforma, because a clause permitting extra floors is an addition to it.

Key takeaway. In Karnataka the first question is not whether two-thirds of the buyers consented. It is whether your agreement for sale already permitted this change, because K-RERA and the tribunal have treated clauses permitting changes, from a general right to alter the plans to a specific right to add floors, as consent given in advance.

What did K-RERA and the tribunal decide in the Raintree Boulevard complaint?

They dismissed it, at both levels, and the reasons are the builder's case at its strongest. The Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association complained against L&T Realty Developers in May 2025 about a township of about 67 acres on Bellary Road in Bengaluru. The buyers said it had been sold as predominantly residential, that the plan was modified after they signed to bring in offices and a mall and move the clubhouse without two-thirds consent, and that a new phase, Elara Celestia, was registered without disclosing this. They asked for that registration to be revoked and the commercial buildings removed.

K-RERA's Full Bench dismissed Complaint No. 00772/2025 on 15 April 2026. The agreements of October 2016 reserved the owner's right to develop the larger land in phases for residential, commercial, retail or public buildings at its discretion, the construction agreement allowed modifications to the development plans with the competent authorities' approval without prejudice to the apartment layout disclosed, the modification had been applied for on 28 March 2017, before the relevant provisions of the Act came into force, and the buyers' undivided share was restricted to the 7.65 acres of the first phase. It also held that it had no power to order demolition.

The tribunal confirmed the order in Appeal No. (K-REAT) 63/2026 on 27 August 2026. No brochure or advertisement supported the "predominantly residential" claim, and the agreements and sale deeds disclosed a mixed development and the sale of a large portion for a mall. Reading Section 14 with Section 2(n), Section 2(zn) and the Explanation to Section 3, under which each phase is a standalone project, it held that the sanctioned plan Section 14 protects is the plan of the registered project in which the buyers bought, not the planning approvals for the larger township. Even if consent had been needed, the application predated 1 May 2017, when Section 14 came into force, and the association had waited more than five years. It distinguished a Madras High Court ruling in which, as the tribunal described it, new towers were built on the very spot earmarked for the clubhouse. The sixty days for an appeal to the High Court under Section 58 run from communication of the order, and as of 15 October 2026 we had found no report of one.

When have tribunals penalised a builder for an extra floor or building?

Three times in September 2026, outside Karnataka. In the Telangana case the 2017 permit uploaded on the RERA website showed the amenities block as ground plus two floors, but the occupancy certificate of 6 June 2023 cited a later permit for ground plus three upper floors, and the revised plan was never uploaded. The tribunal treated that as a gross violation of Section 11(3), which requires the sanctioned plans to be made available to allottees, held that the extra clubhouse floor was built without the two-thirds consent Section 14(2) requires, and, despite the promoter's argument that the extra area was trivial and cost the owners nothing, upheld the Rs 27.5 lakh penalty.

The Maharashtra tribunal went further in its judgment of 7 September 2026 in the Parshvadhara Complex society's appeal against Parshwanath Developers. The 2015 plan shown to buyers had four wings, and a revision of July 2021 added a fifth building on open and recreational space after most wings had occupancy certificates. A promoter may build an additional structure without consent, the tribunal held, only if it was disclosed in the layout plan with full and true disclosure at the time of sale. Blanket consent clauses were not informed consent, and a lawful sanction from the planning authority did not bind the allottees. It ordered the building demolished within ninety days at the promoters' cost, the open spaces restored, the land conveyed and a Rs 10 lakh penalty paid. Nine days later, in the RA Residences society's appeal against RA Associates, the same bench found that a commercial wing disclosed at 3,231.63 square metres had grown to about 7,457 square metres through premium FSI. Because construction had substantially advanced, it refused demolition, imposed a penalty of two percent of the project cost, directed conveyance by the FSI in the disclosed 2017 plan, ordered the sale proceeds of the extra area shared after costs, and barred further floors without the informed consent of two-thirds of the allottees of both buildings. These rulings are persuasive in Karnataka, not binding, and the Maharashtra ones rest partly on that State's flat-ownership statute.

What is the builder's strongest case, and when is it right?

When the change was part of what you bought. Several of these answers are good ones, and a group that ignores them loses.

• The extra floors or block were in the layout plan disclosed at booking. Even the Maharashtra tribunal accepts that a disclosed structure may be built as disclosed without fresh consent.
• The revised plan was sanctioned before you signed. Section 14(2) bites after the plans are disclosed to you, and in Appeal 17/2024 the tribunal noted that the development plan had been modified before the buyers' agreement.
• Your agreement for sale permitted the change, which is enough in Karnataka on the tribunal's reading.
• The new construction is in a separately registered phase on land outside yours, which was central to the Raintree appeal.
• The change is minor and either asked for by you or needed for architectural and structural reasons, certified by an architect or engineer and intimated to you. That proviso never covers an extra floor.
• The revision was applied for before 1 May 2017, which the Karnataka tribunal treated as a right that accrued on the date of application.

Two other arguments have failed elsewhere: reliance on the planning sanction in Maharashtra, where the tribunal separated building to a sanction from building to what buyers were shown, and the claim in Telangana that the extra floor cost the buyers nothing.

Why does our undivided share shrink when floors are added?

Because the land does not grow when the building does. Your undivided share, the UDS, is your fraction of the land and common areas, and agreements commonly describe it as a pro-rata or proportionate share. Add floors, and more flats share the same land, so each fraction falls unless yours was fixed at the start on the land's full potential. K-RERA's proforma agreement gives each unit an "Undivided Share" column in its schedule, and a Bengaluru sale deed recital quoted in the Raintree order conveys an apartment with its carpet area, covered parking, an undivided pro-rata share in the common areas and an undivided pro-rata share of land stated in square metres and square feet.

That schedule decides your position. In the Raintree appeal, the tribunal noted that the agreements and sale deeds gave the buyers their undivided share only in the first phase's land, so the development elsewhere in the township did not touch it. In RA Residences, the Maharashtra tribunal held that loading extra FSI onto the commercial wing reduced the residential society's proportionate interest in the land, and treated that adverse effect as a reason informed consent was required. Read your own schedule. A stated area or percentage is the firm kind, the kind the Telangana regulator protected. A bare "proportionate share" is the kind that moves with the building.

Can the builder reduce the share written in our agreement or sale deed?

Not by a general clause, on the only recent order we found on the point, which comes from Telangana. In Complaint No. 254 of 2025 against PBSR Developers, decided on 5 October 2026, the agreement of January 2017 fixed the undivided share as a percentage equal to a stated area, for a tower of sixteen upper floors later approved at twenty. The builder relied on clauses entitling it to use TDR and build additional floors, on the words "subject to the terms" beside the share, and on the argument that an undivided share cannot be sold separately, so reducing it caused no loss. The regulator accepted that the clauses reserved the extra floors but held that development rights and ownership of a quantified share are distinct, that a general reference to the terms is no licence to take away a quantified ownership right, and that the share referable to sixteen floors had to be recognised. It directed the builder to pay the difference between the share promised and the share provided. It did not stop the floors. As of 15 October 2026 we had found no Karnataka order deciding this precise point.

After the property is submitted to the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 by a registered Declaration, the position hardens. Section 2 applies the Act only to property so submitted, Section 3(f)(1) makes the land under the building a common area, and Section 6(2) gives each owner's percentage of undivided interest, as expressed in the Declaration, a permanent character that can be altered only with the consent of all the apartment owners in an amended Declaration, duly executed and registered. From then on the bar is unanimity, not two-thirds. How the Declaration is made is covered in our guide on forcing handover of the association and common areas. The Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Act, 2026 (Karnataka Act 45 of 2026) received the Governor's assent on 9 October and was published in the Gazette on 15 October 2026, but commences only on a date the State Government notifies, and by 27 October 2026 we found no such notification, so the 1972 Act still governs. Once in force, it repeals the 1972 Act, keeps unanimity for altering recorded shares (Section 11(3)), and, after management passes to the association, bars the builder from further construction unless it (a) forms part of the sanctioned plan disclosed in the declaration, (b) has the competent authority's prior approval and the consent of at least two-thirds of the apartment owners (Section 16(4)).

Common mistake. Registering a sale deed that carries a smaller undivided share than the agreement, on an assurance that it will be sorted out later. Once registered the deed says what it says, and correcting it becomes the separate exercise in our guide on a builder who will not sign a rectification deed. Compare the figure in the draft with your agreement and object in writing before the registration date.

What can K-RERA order: a stop to the work, demolition or compensation?

It can stop the work and penalise the change, but on its own reading and the tribunal's it cannot order demolition. Any aggrieved person may complain under Section 31, and the Explanation to Section 31(1) includes the association of allottees. Under Section 36, where during an inquiry K-RERA is satisfied that a contravention is being committed or is about to be, it may restrain the promoter until the inquiry ends, without notice where it thinks that necessary. Section 37 lets it issue binding directions, and Section 61 allows a penalty of up to five percent of the estimated cost of the project for contravening Section 14.

Demolition is where Karnataka parts company with Maharashtra. In Appeal 17/2024 the tribunal held, adopting a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling, that RERA confers no power to order demolition, which may rest with the municipal commissioner or the town and country planning department, and K-RERA applied that in the Raintree order. Money is a separate track. Section 71(1) gives the adjudicating officer power to award compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, and Section 72 tells the officer to weigh any disproportionate gain or unfair advantage the promoter made, which fits a builder who sold extra floors on land you share.

What should our group do now, step by step?

1. Get the revised plan and its date. The approvals list on the K-RERA project page is one source, explained in our guide on checking a project's RERA registration, and Section 19(1) entitles each allottee to the sanctioned plans, so ask the builder in writing as well.
2. Put the plan annexed to your agreement beside the revised plan and list every change: floors, height, number of flats, open space, clubhouse, parking and setbacks.
3. Compare dates. If the revision was sanctioned before you signed, Section 14(2) may not help on that change, and your effort is better spent on the share.
4. Read your agreement for any additional-construction or FSI clause, set it against clause 17 of K-RERA's proforma, and note whether it names the floors or the FSI or is only a general right to revise.
5. Find your undivided share in the schedule and note its form: a stated area, a percentage or only "proportionate".
6. Count the allottees in the building, each family once, and ask the builder in writing for copies of any consents he relies on.
7. Write to the builder through the association, or a group if none is formed, recording the objection and asking for the consent record and the revised share calculation. Sign no consent form or revised schedule until you have read what it gives up.
8. File the K-RERA complaint while the floors are unbuilt, asking for a restraint under Section 36, directions under Section 37 and a penalty under Section 61, and claim compensation before the adjudicating officer under Section 71 where the loss can be quantified.

How long will it take, what will it cost, and what are the deadlines?

Plan on months at K-RERA, longer with an appeal. Fees, plan copies and members' time are the main costs, so treat any quoted figure as an indicative range, one that falls per member as the group grows. Section 29(4) asks K-RERA to dispose of matters within sixty days and to record reasons when it cannot. The Raintree complaint, filed in May 2025, was decided in April 2026, and the appeal in August 2026. Either side may appeal to the tribunal within sixty days of receiving a copy of the order under Section 44(2), and from the tribunal to the High Court within sixty days of communication under Section 58, on the grounds in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. What a promoter must deposit before his appeal is heard, under the proviso to Section 43(5), is in our guide on a builder's appeal to the Karnataka tribunal.

Deadline warning. Section 14 sets no period of limitation, but delay is still costly. The Karnataka tribunal held a gap of more than five years against the buyers, and the Maharashtra tribunal refused demolition because construction had substantially advanced. Complain while the work can still be stopped, and diarise the sixty days for any appeal from the date you receive the order.

Where do buyers' groups go wrong with these revisions?

In the revisions that reach us, the law is rarely the weak point. Buyers usually learn of the new floors from the site rather than from a notice, by which time the revised plan has been sanctioned and uploaded for months. Nobody has read the additional-construction clause against the plan annexed to the agreement, nobody knows how many allottees the building has, and the undivided share in the draft sale deed has never been checked against the agreement. The complaint then asks K-RERA to demolish, which it has said it cannot do, rather than to restrain the work and penalise the change while there is still something to restrain. And the most useful document, a dated copy of the plan and brochure shown at booking, is often the one nobody kept.

Four points from the orders above decide most of these disputes:

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.

Related Guides

The RERA and homebuyer disputes practice page covers K-RERA complaints by allottees and associations, and the property and real estate law practice page covers agreements for sale and conveyances.

• The Builder Wants Me to Sign Consent for a New Promoter: What Must I Check?
• The Bank Found a Mistake in My Registered Sale Deed and the Builder Will Not Sign the Rectification Deed
• The Parking Slot the Builder Gave Me Has a Pillar in It: What I Bought and What K-RERA Can Order