SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I.ARUN, J.
 
Sri. Krishnamurthy N., S/o. V.Nagrajappa – Appellant
Versus 
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Chief Secretary Government Of Karnataka – Respondent 
Writ Petition No.11201 Of 2025 (LB-BMP) Connected With Writ Petition No.6347 Of 2025 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 05-12-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. V.Srinivasa Raghavan, Senior Adv., For Smt. Nayana Tara B.G., And Sri. C.C. Chengappa, Adv.
For the Respondent:Sri. Milind Dange, Aga, Along With Sri. Adithya C. Shukapuri, Adv., Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Senior Counsel For Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar And Sri. Pradeep C. Patil, Adv., Sri.Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate For Sri. K. Krishna, Adv.

The introduction of Premium Floor Area Ratio under Section 18B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act is constitutional and does not violate landowners' rights, balancing public interests and individual development rights.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Sections 14B and 18B - Writ petition filed challenging the constitutionality of Section 18B, which introduces a Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for development projects - Petitioners contend the amendment adversely affects their Transferable Development Rights (TDR) acquired due to land acquisition - State's introduction of Premium FAR seen as arbitrary and against urban planning principles. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Right to Property - The petitioners argue that the introduction of Premium FAR undermines the value of their previously granted TDR, thus violating their constitutional rights under Article 300A. The court clarified the nature and purpose of both TDR and Premium FAR in regulatory planning, ruling that the introduction of Premium FAR is not arbitrary, as the ultimate benefit of development rights remains with the landowners under the TDR system, which allows for maximum utilization of FAR in developed areas. (Paras 10-18)

Findings of Court:
The amendment allowing Premium FAR does not infringe on the grip of TDR but, instead, works in complementary fashion in the planning framework.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and details of writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. description of the tdr and premium far mechanisms. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments against premium far impacting tdr holders. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court observations on the implications of premium far. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. the justification for the introduction of premium far. (Para 19)
6. dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 20)

ORDER :

M.I.ARUN, J.

1. Certain lands belonging to the petitioners in and around Bengaluru have been acquired by the State authorities for public purpose. As compensation for the said acquisition, the petitioners opted for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) instead of monetary compensation and the same has been granted to them. Thereafter, an amendment is brought to the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by way of introducing Section 18B, by which, the State has introduced a concept of Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Thereafter, the relevant Rules have been amended and also certain notifications have been issued to give effect to the concept of premium FAR. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed.

2. The prayers in W.P.No.11201/2025 are as follows:

"a. Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other writ, order, or direction of similar nature declaring Section18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 inserted vide Act No. 25 of 2020 unconstitutional and contrary to Section 14B of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act;

b. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order, direction of similar nature quashing the Notification bearing number UDD 78 MNJ 2024 (E) dated 2.4.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-A;

c. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order, direction of similar nature quashing Rule 37-E of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules 1965;

d. Pass such other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice."

3. The prayers in W.P.No.6347/2025 are as follows:

"1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing Notification No. UDD 78 MNJ 2024 (E), dated 21.02.2025 vide ANNEXURE A, issued by the Government of Karnataka (Respondent no 02), as being arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 , and the Constitution of India.

1(A). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing Notification No. UDD 78 MNJ 2024 (E), dated 02.04.2025 vide (ANNEXURE F), issued by the Government of Karnataka (Respondent no 02), as being arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 , and the Constitution of India.

1(B). Issue a writ, order, or direction of similar nature declaring Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 , inserted by Act No. 25 of 2020, as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, and contrary to the scheme and intent of Section 14-B of the .

1(C). Issue a writ, order, or direction of similar nature quashing Rule 37-E of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 , as being ultra vires the parent Act, unconstitutional, and contrary to the statutory framework.

2. Declare that the introduction of Premium FAR through the impugned notification is contrary to established urban planning norms and violates the principles of equitable development, public safety, and infrastructure adequacy.

3. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction by directing the Respondents to duly consider and address the representations and objections submitted by the petitioners vide ANNEXURE D.

4. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to grant the pending Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to landowners whose land ha



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top