The Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Bill, 2026 (KAOMA) changes how a homeowner’s share of the land is calculated — and the new formula gives the individual less than what the old law, that is the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (KAOA), promised. The KAOMA Bill was passed by the Karnataka legislature in August, but is yet to receive assent from the Governor, who has sought clarifications on certain provisions.
What is UDI and why does it matter?
When you buy an apartment, you buy two things:
- The flat — a depreciating asset (buildings lose value over time).
- Your Undivided Interest (UDI) in the land — the appreciating asset, as land only goes up in value. (Actually the UDI is your share in all common areas, not only the land, but here, we will focus on the land).
Your UDI determines:
- How much of the land under your building you actually own
- What your vote counts for in association decisions (KAOMA allows only one vote regardless of your property value; yet another retrograde change from KAOA, and must be challenged).
- What you receive if the land is acquired or the building is redeveloped.
The following sections explain the injustice:
1. The UDI is value-based in the old (existing) law (KAOA, 1972)
Section 6(1) of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (KAOA) states:
“Such percentage shall be computed by taking as a basis the value of the apartment in relation to the value of the property.”
- Value. Not area. Not carpet area. Not super built-up area.
- Under KAOA, if you paid a premium for a higher floor or a better view, that premium was supposed to translate into a larger share of the land.
- The law recognised that not all apartments are equal — and your ownership stake should reflect what you actually paid.
2. The UDI is area-based in new law (KAOMA, 2026)
The new Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Act, 2026 proposes a fundamentally different formula.
It calculates UDI “in the ratio of its private area to the total private area of all apartments.”
- Area only.
- Premiums? Discounts? Location? View? Floor? Irrelevant.
3. The arithmetic of injustice
The following comparison will convince you how this is unfair. Consider two apartments of identical size in the same building:
| Apartment A | Apartment B | |
| Floor | 20th floor (premium) | Ground floor |
| View | Lake-facing (+30% premium) | Drain-facing (-15% discount) |
| Price | ₹1.5 crore | ₹1.0 crore |
| UDI under KAOA (value-based) | Proportionately higher | Proportionately lower |
| UDI under KAOMA (area-based) | Identical | |
Under KAOMA, both buyers receive the same share of the land. The buyer of Apartment A pays ₹50 lakhs more but gets zero additional land. The land is the only part of the purchase that appreciates. This is not just unfair — it is structurally arbitrary.
Read more: Karnataka Apartment Management Bill: The proposed law needs one critical correction
Why this matters: The constitutional argument
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legislation can be struck down under Article 14 (Right to Equality) if it is “manifestly arbitrary” — that is, capricious, irrational, or without adequate determining principle.
Key judgments:
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) — manifest arbitrariness applies to primary legislation
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) — struck down Section 497 IPC
- Khalsa University v. State of Punjab (2024) — struck down a Repeal Act for violating Article 14
- Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) — struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme
- Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar (2026) — reaffirmed that even primary legislation remains open to the test of manifest arbitrariness
An area-only formula that ignores multi-crore value differentials is the very definition of arbitrary. It treats unequals as equals. It bears no rational nexus to the objective of fair allocation. It is a textbook case of manifest arbitrariness.
The irony
KAOMA was sold as a reform to strengthen apartment owners’ rights. It promises clear transfer of property rights and UDI from builders to owners. Yet, in the fine print, it reduces what you get — by abandoning the value-based formula of 1972 and replacing it with a one-size-fits-all area metric.
The draft Bill is the first Karnataka law to prescribe a formula for UDI — but it measures your title on one tape and your maintenance bill on another.
What you can do
- Read the bill: Check what the Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Bill, 2026 says about UDI calculation.
- Submit your objections: As the proposed legislation awaits the Governor’s approval, send your suggestions and objections to the government.
- Challenge the law: The manifest arbitrariness doctrine is a powerful tool. A constitutional challenge under Article 14 is not just possible — it is legally sound.
The bottom line
- KAOA said: Your land share = what you paid.
- KAOMA says: Your land share = your area, regardless of what you paid.
This is not progress. This is a retrograde step that systematically deprives homebuyers of their fair share of the appreciating asset — the land. The law already got it right in 1972. The new Bill gets it wrong.
To understand more about the provisions of the Bill, read a detailed analysis here.
In apartment maintenance amount is being collected on sq ft basis. I feel it is unfair. The operational expenses like security salary, electric charges for common area,diesal cost and house keeping consumables are common it should be shared equally. If the apt consists of 25 two BHK and 15 three BHK and it goes for voting, the decision goes against the large flat owners.
Even though various court judgement says maintenance should be collected per unit basis and not on sq ft basis is not followed. If the amendment makes clear it it will be fine.
Wen KAOA was effective, the maintenance was supposed to be based on the UDI, which was the ratio of the value of the given apartment divided by the total value of all apartments.
In that formula, the “Value” includes any premium charged based on location (e.g. garden-facing), floor level, etc. It also includes the worth of any limited common areas that are attached to the apartment.
So no courts could have ordered people to pay “per unit” or “per area”.