Bengaluru buildings can go higher as Karnataka High Court upholds premium FAR policy

4 min readBengaluruJun 18, 2026 08:21 PM IST

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the validity of Karnataka’s Premium Floor Area Ratio (PFAR) scheme, allowing landowners and developers to secure additional construction rights by paying premium charges (File photo for representative use).

In a major boost for vertical urban development, the Karnataka High Court Monday upheld the validity of the state government’s Premium Floor Area Ratio (PFAR) scheme. The programme allows landowners and developers to bypass standard built-up limits by paying premium charges directly to the state to secure additional construction rights.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) measures the total floor area of a building relative to the size of its plot. Historically used by town planners to control urban density, FAR ensures that built-up space remains proportionate to existing infrastructure, such as road width, water supply, sewage systems, and drainage networks.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha, in an order dated June 15, dismissed a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the move. The court stated, “There is no material to establish that an increase in FAR would deprive the residents of their quality of life. We are unable to accept that the increase in FAR violates Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution of India.”

The legal challenge targeted Section 18B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2020, along with Rule 37-E of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules and subsequent operational notifications issued in 2026.

The petitions, spearheaded by civic groups including the Citizens’ Action Forum and activist Vijayan Menon, argued that the policy was designed purely to generate state revenue rather than promote planned growth. They alleged it would trigger a mushrooming of high-rises, choke traffic, drain utilities, block sunlight, and destroy Bengaluru’s environmental balance.

Petitioners argued that the scheme destroyed the economic framework of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). TDRs are certificates issued to citizens who surrender their land for public infrastructure projects in lieu of cash compensation.

Senior Advocate V Srinivasan Raghavan and Dr Harish Narasappa argued that because Premium FAR is available at just 28 per cent to 50 per cent of a land’s guidance value, exempt from stamp duty or registration costs, builders would entirely abandon the TDR market. This, they claimed, unconstitutionally stripped land-losers of their asset value under Article 300A.

Story continues below this ad

Why High Court dismissed objections

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty defended the scheme, pointing out that Bengaluru’s baseline FAR norms were historically among the lowest of any major Indian metropolitan city. He argued that vertical growth is the only sustainable pathway to accommodate a rapidly swelling population amid acute land scarcity.

The bench rejected the appellants’ contention that providing additional FAR in exchange for premium charges, which may be lower than the cost of acquiring TDR, would offend Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

“The assumption that Article 300A of the Constitution of India guarantees property owners that the market value of their property will be sustained is ill-founded. The assumption that Article 300A of the Constitution insulates property owners from the effect of policy changes or other economic or market forces is equally erroneous.”

The court refused to accept the contention that the Premium FAR scheme renders TDRs “nugatory”. The bench in the order observed, “The 2026 notification clearly indicates that Premium FAR is not available for plots or developments abutting roads with a width of 9 metres or greater but less than 12 metres. On plots abutting such roads, the additional FAR of 0.6 times the base FAR is available only by loading TDRs, which the developers/ owners of the recipient plot would have to acquire from TDR holders.”

Story continues below this ad

Refusing to accept the contention of the appellants that unplanned growth violates the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The bench in the order said, “We cannot supplant our opinion on the question whether the increase in FAR would lead to haphazard development, in place of the concerned authorities.”

The petitioners had contended that the PFAR Scheme seeks to reintroduce the Akrama Sakrama scheme, which is the subject matter of a challenge pending before the Supreme Court, and is intended to regularise unauthorised construction.

Rejecting the contention, the court in the order said, “Clearly, the Premium FAR scheme does not seek to regularise unauthorised construction; it changes the law uniformly, permitting additional construction by availing Premium FAR to the extent provided on payment of a charge.”