Court Rules Premium FAR Does Not Violate Property Rights, Is Not Excessive Delegation, and Aligns with Town Planning Objectives; Section 38-D of BDA Act Also Upheld
In a landmark judgment delivered on June 15, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench) dismissed multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (KTCP Act). The ruling also upheld the validity of Section 38-D of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act, 1976, rejecting claims of arbitrariness and violation of fundamental rights.
The Premium FAR scheme allows property owners in Bengaluru and surrounding planning areas to construct additional built-up space beyond the ordinarily permissible FAR by paying “premium charges.” The scheme was introduced to address urban development needs and promote vertical growth amid land scarcity. The petitioners contended that the scheme violated Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life), and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution, was arbitrary, and inconsistent with existing Transferable Development Rights (TDR) provisions under Section 14-B of the KTCP Act.
The Court, led by Chief Justice Mr. Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, comprehensively examined the statutory framework, including the KTCP Act, the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 (Rule 37-E), and the related notifications of 2025 and 2026. It noted that the Premium FAR scheme is an enabling provision that permits additional construction only in areas identified by reference to road widths in the Zonal Regulations and Master Plan, thereby ensuring a planned approach.
Addressing the claim of violation of Article 300A, the Court observed that while Premium FAR charges may be lower than the cost of acquiring TDRs, this does not amount to unlawful deprivation of property. Article 300A protects against expropriation without authority of law but does not guarantee the maintenance of property values against policy or market fluctuations. The Court rejected the argument that the scheme “denudes” TDR holders’ rights, highlighting that maximum additional FAR achievable requires a combination of Premium FAR and TDR, preserving TDR’s market relevance.
On the issue of excessive delegation, the Court held that Section 18-B provides sufficient legislative policy and guidance. The authority empowered to grant Premium FAR is the Planning Authority as per Section 15 of the KTCP Act, and the scheme is confined within the limits prescribed by the Zonal Regulations. Delegated legislation, including Rule 37-E, properly implements the statutory framework without usurping the legislature’s essential role.
The Court also dismissed contentions that the scheme violates Article 21 by causing urban congestion or environmental degradation. While recognizing the challenges of urbanization, it ruled that policy decisions on FAR expansion cannot be judicially reviewed for merits unless there is a clear constitutional rights violation. No convincing evidence was presented that the increase in FAR adversely affects residents’ quality of life.
Importantly, the Court distinguished the Premium FAR scheme from the controversial “Akrama Sakrama” scheme, which regularizes unauthorized constructions. It clarified that Premium FAR uniformly amends permissible limits under Zonal Regulations and requires payment of premium charges prior to additional construction, thus not amounting to legalization of illegal buildings.
Furthermore, the Court found no requirement for mandatory consultation with the Bengaluru Metropolitan Planning Committee (BMPC) under Article 243ZE of the Constitution during the framing of the scheme, as the Master Plan and Zonal Regulations are distinct from the draft development plan prepared by the BMPC.
Lastly, the Court upheld Section 38-D of the BDA Act, which enables allotment of BDA land to original owners or settled occupants under specified conditions. The section was found to contain clear guiding principles and was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14.
Consequently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ appeal and connected petitions, affirming the constitutional validity of the Premium FAR scheme and related provisions.
Bottom line:-
The Premium FAR scheme introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 does not violate Articles 14, 21, or 300A of the Constitution of India, nor does it suffer from excessive delegation or inconsistency with other provisions of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 Section 14-B, Section 18-B, Section 38-D of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 Rule 37-E, Constitution of India Articles 14, 21, 243ZE, 300A
Sri Krishnamurthy N v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2926547
