The KAOMA 2026 bill has brought Bengaluru’s long-running apartment ownership dispute into sharper focus: who legally controls a building’s common areas, how apartment associations should be recognised, and what powers they can use to recover unpaid maintenance. A Bangalore Apartments Federation delegation met Karnataka governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot on Friday and submitted a representation urging assent to the legislation, which has already been passed by the state legislature.
The proposed Karnataka Apartment Ownership and Management Bill, 2026, is intended to define the rights and duties of apartment owners and provide a legal framework for managing shared property. For residents, the question is not limited to the title to an individual flat. It extends to the land, corridors, lifts, amenities and other common areas that make a housing project function as a collective property.
That distinction is central to the debate. Satish Mallya, president of the Bangalore Apartments Federation, said apartment ownership should mean more than owning “four walls” and should include meaningful rights over common property shared by all owners. His statement captures the gap the bill is expected to address: a flat may be individually occupied, but the building depends on collective decisions, common expenditure and a legally recognised association.
The immediate trigger for the latest discussion is the bill’s pending assent. Several apartment residents are waiting for the ownership and management rules to take effect. Until then, apartment communities may continue to rely on different legal arrangements and interpretations, including registrations under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and provisions under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.
## The ownership question behind apartment governance
The law’s significance lies in how it connects ownership with administration. Apartment buildings require a body that can maintain common facilities, administer shared property and collect contributions from individual owners. If the legal status of that body is unclear, routine functions such as maintenance recovery, upkeep and decision-making can become vulnerable to disputes.
Vikram Rai, a former president of the Bangalore Apartments Federation and a resident of Brigade Millennium, said older apartment communities registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act could benefit from automatic recognition as apartment associations under the proposed law. He also said courts had, in several cases, effectively rejected the legitimacy of using the societies law for apartments.
This issue reflects a structural problem in the governance of housing that has developed faster than the legal framework supporting it. Bengaluru’s apartment communities are not simply collections of separate homes. They are privately managed urban environments with shared infrastructure and collective financial obligations. The legal form of the association therefore affects how residents exercise rights over property and how responsibilities are enforced.
Rai said the bill would clarify that the land and common areas of an apartment complex collectively belong to all owners in proportion to their undivided rights. He also pointed to provisions that would give the association the right to manage, maintain and administer the property, along with statutory powers to assess and recover maintenance charges.
If enacted in this form, the legislation would address two connected questions. The first is the ownership of common property. The second is the institutional capacity to manage it. A community may recognise that residents share responsibility for a lift, driveway or other facility, but that recognition is difficult to operationalise unless the association has a clear legal mandate.
## RERA compliance and the enforcement gap
The proposed law does not exist in isolation. Some home buyer associations have argued that RERA already requires a promoter to execute a registered conveyance and transfer undivided proportionate title in common areas to the association of allottees or to the competent authority, as applicable.
That position points to a distinction between rights already set out in law and the practical enforcement of those rights. Mallya acknowledged that the challenge is timely compliance and enforcement. In other words, the existence of a statutory requirement does not automatically ensure that documents are executed, common areas are transferred or associations receive effective control at the point when residents need it.
This is one of the most important institutional questions raised by the bill. A new apartment ownership framework may clarify the final legal position, but its effectiveness will depend on how it interacts with existing RERA obligations and the actions required from promoters, associations and public authorities. The source report does not establish how the bill resolves every point of interaction between the two frameworks.
Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar, convener of the Karnataka Home Buyers Forum, raised precisely this concern. He said the KAOMA bill omits essential provisions for transferring common areas to registered associations and that this omission contradicts RERA requirements.
The disagreement is significant because transfer of common areas is not a technical formality. It determines whether residents can exercise meaningful control over the property they collectively maintain. If an association is recognised but the transfer mechanism remains incomplete, residents could still face disputes over documentation, authority and possession of common facilities.
The competing positions also show why apartment governance cannot be assessed only by asking whether a law has been passed. The operational test is whether residents can obtain recognised title, form a legally effective association, make binding decisions and recover contributions needed to run the property.
## A law shaped by Bengaluru’s older apartments
The debate has particular relevance for older apartment complexes. Rai’s reference to Brigade Millennium illustrates how communities established under an earlier legal arrangement may face uncertainty about their institutional status even when they have been functioning for years.
Older projects often predate the current expectations surrounding apartment associations, promoter handover and formalised resident governance. Their residents may have maintained buildings and managed common facilities through existing bodies, but the legal basis for doing so can be challenged if the registration framework does not clearly correspond to apartment ownership.
The proposed automatic recognition mentioned by Rai is therefore more than an administrative convenience. It could provide continuity for communities that already have functioning associations but whose legal status has not kept pace with the nature of the property they manage. At the same time, the source material does not specify the conditions, procedure or documentation that would govern such recognition.
That missing detail matters. A law that recognises existing associations would need to operate across different types of projects, including older developments, large managed communities and apartments where disputes already exist. The available report does not establish how the bill would handle contested associations, incomplete conveyance documents or disagreements between promoters and residents.
The bill’s significance consequently rests on both what it appears to clarify and what residents and buyer groups say remains unresolved. The federation’s position emphasises ownership, management powers and maintenance recovery. The home buyers’ forum highlights the absence of provisions it considers necessary for transferring common areas. Both perspectives point to the same underlying problem: apartment governance depends on a chain of legal steps, and a gap in any one step can weaken the entire system.
## What the governor’s assent would change—and what it would not
The governor’s assent would move the bill from a legislative proposal to an operative state law, subject to the commencement and implementation process provided for in the legislation. It would mark an important institutional transition for apartment communities seeking a clearer legal framework.
However, assent alone would not settle every ownership or maintenance dispute. The practical outcome would depend on the rules, administrative processes, interpretation and enforcement that follow. It would also depend on whether the new framework adequately addresses the relationship between apartment associations, promoters, competent authorities and existing RERA obligations.
The source report confirms that residents and organisations see the bill as significant, but it does not provide the full text of the legislation, details of its commencement provisions or a formal response from the governor’s office. It therefore cannot establish the precise effect of every clause or the timeline for implementation.
What it does establish is the pressure behind the legislation. Apartment owners are asking for clearer rights over common areas and stronger institutional authority for associations. Federation representatives see legal recognition and maintenance recovery as essential to functioning communities. Home buyer representatives are warning that the transfer of common areas must not be left incomplete.
The larger urban question is whether Bengaluru’s housing laws can match the complexity of its apartment-based growth. A residential project is a small governance system: residents share land, infrastructure, services, expenses and decisions. When the law does not clearly define ownership and authority, those everyday systems become vulnerable to delay and dispute.
The KAOMA 2026 bill could provide a stronger foundation for that governance, but its effectiveness will be judged by the legal and administrative clarity available after assent. The next developments to monitor are the governor’s decision, the final operative text, the rules or procedures that follow, and how the new framework addresses the common-area transfer concerns raised by home buyer groups.
