The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant directive to the Karnataka government, addressing concerns over the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme that critics argue could serve as a loophole for regularizing unauthorized constructions. The directive comes as part of a notice in the case of Citizens Action Forum v. State of Karnataka.
Legal Context and Supreme Court’s Directive
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana has mandated that the Premium FAR cannot be utilized to legitimize unauthorized buildings. The court’s order stipulates, “Issue notice. Let a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Meanwhile, the Premium FAR shall not be used for the purpose of regularizing unauthorized construction. Similarly, the clearance of Premium FAR shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition.”
This scheme, implemented under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, allows developers to purchase additional floor space through premium payments. The Karnataka High Court had previously affirmed the scheme’s validity in June, a decision now contested in the Supreme Court.
Arguments from Both Sides
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing the petitioners, voiced concerns that the Premium FAR relies heavily on road width as a criterion, exacerbating Bangalore’s already strained infrastructure. Sondhi warned that this scheme might echo the controversial Akrama-Sakrama initiative, which was criticized for legalizing illegal structures.
In defense, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing Karnataka, rebuffed accusations of the scheme allowing backdoor regularization of illegal constructions. “No unauthorized construction under the Akrama-Sakrama will be regularized under this scheme. It has nothing to do with that,” Mehta assured the court.
Mehta further argued that the Premium FAR’s additional floor space is limited to 0.6 of the original FAR, ensuring compliance with essential parking and setback regulations. He emphasized that revenue from this scheme is allocated to a dedicated infrastructure fund, necessary for urban development.
Supreme Court’s Concerns
CJI Surya Kant expressed deep reservations about the state’s development strategy, highlighting a lack of improvement in essential infrastructure such as roads, sewer lines, and public transport facilities. “Without adding to this infrastructure, you are burdening the size of the plot with multiple stories,” Justice Kant remarked, pointing to the potential collapse of urban systems under natural disasters due to insufficient infrastructure.
CJI Kant critiqued builders who often abandon projects post-construction, leaving residents to grapple with inadequate amenities, including parking, water supply, and sewerage issues. He cited the planning in Greater Noida as a model where infrastructure precedes development, catering to long-term needs.
More Read
Justice Bagchi also acknowledged Bangalore’s severe traffic issues, a point of contention raised by the petitioners.
