New Delhi, Sep 22 The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the system collapses in Gurugram during rains because investment was not made in creating infrastructure like drainage and sewage systems.
The top court gave the contrasting example of Greater Noida and said things are different there because it was planned keeping the next 30-40 years in mind.
It made the remarks while hearing a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order which upheld the state government's Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme.
The Premium FAR scheme allows property owners to purchase additional construction rights over and above the ordinarily permissible FAR by paying prescribed premium charges in a bid to facilitate vertical development and generate revenue for urban local bodies.
FAR is the ratio of a building's total floor area (gross floor area) to the size of the piece of land on which it is built.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on the plea filed by petitioner 'Citizens Action Forum' but clarified that the additional FAR should not be used to regularise the illegal construction.
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the NGO, contended that road width has effectively become the sole criterion for granting premium FAR, allowing substantial additional construction without adequately accounting for Bengaluru's existing pressure on parking, water, electricity and other infrastructure.
Justice Bagchi told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for different state authorities, that Bengaluru has a traffic nightmare, and that is a serious concern of the petitioner.
Mehta said the overall additional FAR remains capped at 0.6, existing setback and parking requirements continue to apply, and a developer without the required parking or other regulatory compliance cannot simply purchase additional FAR.
He added that amounts collected under the scheme go into a dedicated fund for civic infrastructure.
Sondhi questioned the scheme and said how the new premium FAR scheme was different from the earlier Akrama-Sakrama scheme of the state government under which unauthorised constructions were legalised.
"They have introduced a new provision in the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act, where they say this premium FAR can be used to regularise existing illegal constructions. There is a specific provision to that, and we brought this to the attention of the high court. This point has been ignored in the judgment," the counsel said.
Mehta told the bench that he is making a statement that no unauthorised construction which is governed by the Akrama-Sakrama scheme will be regularised under this new scheme.
"It has nothing to do with that. Kindly record my statement. It is completely different. You can also pass directions to this effect," Mehta said.
He added that the urban space is limited and the only way out was vertical growth and every city nowadays is going vertical.
CJI Kant said, "There is no visible improvement or addition to the infrastructure, basic infrastructure of the township. It's not that new roads have been constructed, new sewer lines have been provided, new bus flyovers have been multiplied, or all these things.
"We have seen in Gurugram 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 storeys."
He added that in Greater Noida, there is no such problem because it has been planned keeping in mind the next 30-40 years.
The bench asked the Bengaluru authorities to file their response to the plea in four weeks.
On June 15, the high court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka government's Premium FAR scheme and said that it cannot be termed as violative of the Constitution.
It had dismissed the petitions, which had claimed that it violated property rights and eroded the value of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs).
The Premium FAR scheme, introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961, does not violate Articles 14, 21, or 300A of the Constitution, the high court had said.
The NGO has contended before the high court that introduction of Premium FAR — which allows developers to purchase additional building rights at rates significantly lower than the market cost of TDRs — had rendered TDRs, secured by the landowners in lieu of monetary compensation for the land, "nugatory".
The high court has rejected these arguments while holding that "the policy decision of the state government that results in fluctuation of the values of property would not render the policy as violative of Article 300A".
