The Supreme Court pointed to Gurugram as an example of how civic systems can collapse during heavy rains when drainage and sewage infrastructure fails to keep pace with construction.
The top court issued notice on the plea filed by ‘Citizens Action Forum’ and asked the Bengaluru authorities to file their response within four weeks. The bench also clarified that the additional FAR cannot be used to regularise illegal construction. The Premium FAR scheme allows property owners to purchase additional construction rights beyond the ordinarily permitted FAR by paying prescribed premium charges. The scheme aims to facilitate vertical development and generate revenue for urban local bodies. FAR is the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the plot on which it is built. Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the NGO, argued that road width had effectively become the main criterion for granting premium FAR. He added that existing setback and parking requirements continued to apply and that developers could not simply purchase additional FAR without meeting parking and other regulatory requirements. The bench questioned whether infrastructure was being expanded alongside increased construction. 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.
It made the remarks on Tuesday while hearing a plea challenging a Karnataka High Court order that upheld the state government’s Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme and also cited Greater Noida as a contrasting example, saying it was planned keeping the next 30-40 years in mind, news agency PTI reported. Mehta said the overall additional FAR remained capped at 0.6.
He said this could permit substantial additional construction without adequately considering 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 had a traffic nightmare and that this was a serious concern raised by the petitioner. He also said the money collected under the scheme goes into a dedicated fund for civic infrastructure. CJI Kant said, “There is no visible improvement or addition to the infrastructure, basic infrastructure of the township.
“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. “We have seen in Gurugram how this system collapses if any natural calamity comes. There is a specific provision to that, and we brought this to the attention of the High Court. “It has nothing to do with that. Kindly record my statement. It is completely different. He added that urban space was limited and that vertical growth was the only way out, as cities were increasingly developing upwards. The High Court had dismissed petitions claiming that the scheme violated property rights and eroded the value of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). The NGO had argued that Premium FAR allowed developers to purchase additional building rights at rates significantly lower than the market cost of TDRs.
On June 15, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the state government’s Premium FAR scheme and said it could not be termed violative of the Constitution. The Premium FAR scheme, introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961, was held by the High Court not to violate Articles 14, 21 or 300A of the Constitution. Because, without adding to this infrastructure, you are burdening the size of the plot with multiple storeys. Because it had been planned keeping the next 30-40 years in mind, he said Greater Noida was different.
This point has been ignored in the judgment,” the counsel said. Mehta told the bench that no unauthorised construction governed by the Akrama-Sakrama scheme would be regularised under the new scheme. You can also pass directions to this effect,” Mehta said. It contended that this had rendered TDRs, secured by landowners in lieu of monetary compensation for the land, “nugatory”. The High Court rejected the argument, 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”. (With inputs from PTI)
Sondhi questioned how the new Premium FAR scheme differed from the earlier Akrama-Sakrama scheme of the state government, under which unauthorised constructions were legalised.
