Supreme Court orders Karnataka not to regularise illegal constructions under garb of Premium FAR

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the Karnataka government on a plea challenging the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme introduced by the State [Citizens Action Forum v. State of Karnataka].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed that the Premium FAR shall not be used to regularise unauthorised constructions.

"Issue notice. Let Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Meanwhile, the Premium FAR shall not be used for the purpose of regularising unauthorised construction. Similarly, the clearance of Premium FAR shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition," the Court ordered.

The petition before the top court challenges the scheme introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, which permits developers to purchase additional floor space upon paying premium charges.

In June, the Karnataka High Court had upheld the scheme's validity. The decision has been challenged before the top court.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that road width has effectively become the sole criterion for granting Premium FAR.

The same overburdens Bengaluru’s already fragile civic infrastructure, the senior counsel said.

Sondhi also raised concerns that the scheme could be misused to regularise illegal structures under the provisions of the Greater Bengaluru Authority framework. He said it was similar to the controversial Akrama-Sakrama scheme which was introduced to regularise unauthorised buildings.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Karnataka, strongly refuted the allegation that the policy serves as a backdoor for regularisation.

"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 said.

Defending the policy, the SG submitted that additional FAR is capped at 0.6 of the original FAR and does not waive mandatory parking or setback regulations.

He argued that limited urban space leaves vertical expansion as the only viable solution, adding that revenue collected under the scheme is funnelled into a dedicated infrastructure fund.

The Bench, however, expressed deep skepticism about the State's plans, considering the track record of builders in the country. CJI Kant said there is no visible improvement in the basic infrastructure of towns.

"It is not that new roads have been constructed, new sewer lines have been provided, new bus flyovers have been multiplied, or all these things. So it is going to be... How this system collapses if any natural calamity comes. Because without adding to this infrastructure, you are burdening the size of the plot with multiple stories," Justice Kant said.

CJI Kant also said that the builders disappear from the scene once the buildings are constructed.

"Only the families who will be living there will have the miseries of life. If they don't have parking space, if they don't have sufficient water supply, if their sewerage is blocked, all these issues they are going to face," he said.

While pointing to the planned developments in Greater Noida, CJI Kant stressed that basic amenities should 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."

Meanwhile, Justice Bagchi acknowledged that "Bangalore has a traffic nightmare", a concern raised by the petitioner.

[Read Live Coverage]