Back
Supreme Court Orders Karnataka Not to Regularise Illegal Constructions Under Premium FAR Scheme
The on Tuesday issued a stern to the Karnataka government, barring the use of the scheme to regularise unauthorised constructions. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana also issued notice to the state on a petition challenging the scheme’s .
The order came in a matter filed by the , which argued that the Premium FAR scheme—introduced under —effectively allows developers to purchase additional floor space by paying a premium, thereby circumventing existing building regulations and encouraging illegal construction.
What Is the Premium FAR Scheme?
The Premium FAR scheme permits developers in Karnataka to exceed the standard floor area ratio—the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of its plot—by paying an additional charge. The scheme was framed as a revenue-generation tool for the state, with proceeds earmarked for a dedicated infrastructure fund. In June, the upheld the scheme’s validity, prompting the current challenge before the Supreme Court.
Petitioners, represented by , contended that the scheme suffers from a fundamental flaw: it uses road width as the sole criterion for granting additional FAR, without regard for the cumulative strain on Bengaluru’s already fragile civic infrastructure. Sondhi drew parallels to the controversial Akrama-Sakrama scheme, a previous state policy aimed at regularising unauthorised buildings, and warned that the Premium FAR scheme could serve as a backdoor for the same purpose.
State’s Defence and Court’s Skepticism
, appearing for the , strongly refuted the allegation. “No unauthorised construction which is governed by that Akrama-Sakrama will be regularised under this scheme. It has nothing to do with that. Kindly record my statement,” Mehta submitted. He argued that additional FAR is capped at 0.6 of the original FAR and does not waive mandatory parking or setback regulations. Mehta further asserted that limited urban space leaves vertical expansion as the only viable solution, and that revenue collected is funnelled into a dedicated infrastructure fund.
Despite these assurances, the bench expressed deep skepticism about the state’s track record. CJI Surya Kant observed that there has been no visible improvement in basic infrastructure—such as new roads, sewer lines, or bus flyovers—despite years of construction. “Without adding to this infrastructure, you are burdening the size of the plot with multiple stories,” he said, warning of a potential collapse during natural calamities.
The Chief Justice further noted that builders often disappear after construction, leaving residents to grapple with inadequate parking, water supply, and sewerage. Drawing a contrast with planned developments in Greater Noida, he emphasised that basic amenities must come first. “The Greater Noida infrastructure is far better. It takes care of the next 50 years, 60 years, 100 years’ requirements. There, if you permit a liberal approach to go for multi-storey, nobody will mind it because infrastructure takes care. Today you are first permitting random construction, then you are generating a fund to provide basic amenities. That is problematic.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also acknowledged the “traffic nightmare” in Bengaluru, a concern raised by the petitioner.
Legal Implications and the Road Ahead
The Supreme Court’s is a significant check on the Karnataka government’s policy discretion in urban planning. By directing that the Premium FAR scheme shall not be used to regularise unauthorised construction, the court has effectively severed any link between the scheme and the state’s regularisation framework. The order also makes the clearance of Premium FAR subject to the final outcome of the petition, meaning that all approvals granted under the scheme remain provisional.
For the legal community, the case raises important questions about the limits of in town planning. Section 18-B of the KTCP Act grants the state government broad powers to prescribe additional FAR, but the Supreme Court’s scrutiny suggests that such powers cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines the integrity of building regulations or exacerbates infrastructure deficits.
Real estate developers and municipal authorities across India will be watching closely. If the court ultimately strikes down or restricts the scheme, it could set a precedent for similar policies in other states—especially those that rely on FAR premiums to generate revenue without adequate infrastructure planning.
Impact on Residents and Urban Governance
The practical impact of the order is immediate. Builders who had applied for or obtained Premium FAR approvals now face uncertainty. Residents in areas where such approvals were used may find that their buildings are no longer considered compliant, though the court has not yet passed a final judgment.
The case also highlights a growing judicial trend: courts are increasingly unwilling to defer to executive decisions that prioritise short-term revenue over long-term urban sustainability. The Supreme Court’s observations about the absence of parallel infrastructure investment echo concerns raised in several recent environmental and planning cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s in marks a pivotal moment in the regulation of urban construction in Bengaluru. By restraining the use of the Premium FAR scheme for regularisation and demanding a robust counter from the state, the bench has signalled that the lies on the government to demonstrate that such policies do not compromise public welfare.
The matter is next listed for hearing after four weeks, when the state is expected to file its counter affidavit. Until then, all Premium FAR approvals remain subject to the final outcome, leaving developers and residents in a state of . For legal professionals, this case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing economic development with to a healthy and sustainable environment.
