Back
Supreme Court Restrains Karnataka's Premium FAR Scheme from Regularizing Unauthorized Constructions
The
today passed an
restraining the
from using the 'Premium Floor Area Ratio' (Premium FAR) scheme to regularize unauthorized constructions. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by the
, challenging the
of the Premium FAR scheme introduced under
. The court recorded:
"Issue notice...Meanwhile, the Premium FAR shall not be used for the purpose of regularizing
. Similarly, the utilization of Premium FAR shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition."
Background: The Premium FAR Scheme and Its Controversy
The Premium FAR scheme allows developers and landowners to purchase additional construction rights by paying premium charges to the state. Under the current framework, an additional FAR of up to 0.6 times the ordinarily permissible FAR is available for sites abutting roads with a minimum width of 9 meters. For roads between 9 and 12 meters, only can be used, and Premium FAR cannot be utilized. The maximum additional FAR through Premium FAR alone is capped at 0.4 times the base FAR, with the remaining 0.2 to be sourced from TDRs.
In , the dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the scheme, holding that it did not contravene (). Aggrieved, the approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the scheme effectively resurrects the earlier 'Akrama-Sakrama' scheme—which had been stayed by the court—by providing a backdoor for regularizing unauthorized constructions.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
, appearing for the petitioner, contended that FAR is intrinsically linked to plot size, but the new notification allows anyone to pay premium charges to construct additional floors on a given plot, regardless of land coverage. He claimed that the Premium FAR scheme, introduced through notifications in
and
, makes road width the sole criterion for additional FAR, ignoring plot size and existing infrastructure.
"The plot size and land coverage are not changing—it's merely a revenue generation scheme,"
Sondhi argued. He warned of the "havoc" such a scheme could cause in Bangalore, where the last Master Plan was sanctioned 20 years ago, and where 80% of roads are 9 to 12 meters wide.
Responding to the court's query about housing needs, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed:
"How to meet the requirement of housing if you don't go...social security is also a big challenge. Affordable housing, states keep implementing their own schemes."
Sondhi countered that the premium charges are prohibitively high—around 28% of the actual land value—making the scheme beneficial only for builders, not for affordable housing.
, representing Karnataka, argued that the scheme is intended for vertical growth due to limited urban space. He emphasized that the initial FAR ceiling of 0.6 remains, and any additional construction requires proportionate increases in setup areas such as parking. The amount collected under the scheme would go into a statutory fund to augment civic infrastructure. Mehta also offered a crucial assurance:
"I am willing to make a statement that no
governed by Akrama-Sakrama scheme will be regularized using the Premium FAR scheme."
He further claimed that traffic problems in Bangalore would not be aggravated by vertical growth, as all major cities rely on high-density development to solve mobility issues.
Court's Concerns Over Infrastructure and Urban Planning
The bench expressed deep skepticism about the scheme's impact on Bangalore's already strained infrastructure. Justice Joymalya Bagchi reiterated the petitioner's concern about the city's traffic nightmare, while Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that there was
"no visible improvement or addition to the basic infrastructure of the township."
He noted:
"It is not that new roads have been constructed, new sewer lines have been provided, water supply has been multiplied, or all these things. So it is going to be... nearby... How this system collapses if any natural calamity comes. Because without adding to this infrastructural issue, you are burdening the size of the plot with multiple stories."
The Chief Justice drew a contrast with Greater Noida, lauding its forward-looking infrastructure that takes care of next 100 years' requirements.
"Nobody would mind if a liberal approach for multi-storey buildings is sought to be taken there,"
he said. In Bangalore, however, the idea of allowing additional construction first and then providing civic amenities through the revenue corpus was "problematic." He added that builders would "construct and disappear," leaving families to face miseries of life without adequate water, electricity, sewage, and other facilities.
supplemented the petitioners' submissions, noting that in Bangalore, approximately 85,000 roads (almost 80%) measure 9 to 12 meters—a width where Premium FAR does not apply. He argued that the scheme would indirectly enable floor-wise sales, bringing more families into the same residential unit and exacerbating practical problems of parking, water supply, and sanitation.
Legal Implications and Impact on Practice
The effectively halts the use of Premium FAR as a tool for regularizing unauthorized constructions, pending final adjudication. This is significant because many developers had relied on the scheme to legitimize buildings that exceeded permissible FAR, paying a premium to avoid demolition or penalties. The Supreme Court's restraint sends a clear signal that regularization of illegal construction cannot be achieved through a revenue-generating mechanism without addressing underlying infrastructure deficits.
For legal practitioners, the case raises important questions about the interplay between state planning laws and constitutional property rights under Article 300A. The petitioners have challenged the scheme as , arguing that the state cannot monetize violations of town planning regulations. The court's observations about the lack of infrastructure improvements suggest that the bench is sympathetic to the view that Premium FAR, if unchecked, could lead to haphazard urban development.
The Solicitor General's statement that no will be regularized via Premium FAR may provide some reassurance, but the court noted that the scheme itself—even for lawful construction—must be scrutinized for its impact on civic amenities. Developers and builders in Karnataka must now tread cautiously, as any reliance on Premium FAR for projects involving past unauthorized constructions could be invalidated.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's marks a significant intervention in Karnataka's urban planning landscape. By restraining the use of Premium FAR to regularize unauthorized constructions, the court has prioritized infrastructure capacity and the over revenue generation. The final outcome of the petition will likely shape the future of vertical growth in Bangalore and other Indian cities facing similar challenges. As the case progresses, legal professionals will watch closely for the court's reasoning on whether a state can trade additional floor space for fees without corresponding upgrades to public amenities. The next hearing will determine the scheme's ultimate fate, but for now, the message is clear: unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized through a pricing mechanism alone.
