New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Karnataka government not to use the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme to regularise unauthorised constructions, even as it issued notice on a petition challenging …

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Karnataka government not to use the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme to regularise unauthorised constructions, even as it issued notice on a petition challenging the policy.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana ordered that Premium FAR clearances would remain subject to the final outcome of the case, observing that “Bangalore has a traffic nightmare.”Cauvery row | Supreme Court dismisses society plea seeking 70 TMC more water for Karnataka“Issue notice. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Meanwhile, the Premium FAR shall not be used for the purpose of regularising unauthorised construction. Similarly, the clearance of Premium FAR shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition,” the court said.The petition, filed by Citizens Action Forum, challenges the scheme introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, which allows developers to buy additional floor space by paying premium charges. The Karnataka High Court had upheld the scheme’s validity in June.Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that road width has effectively become the sole criterion for granting Premium FAR, further burdening Bengaluru’s already fragile civic infrastructure. He expressed concern that the scheme could be misused to regularise illegal structures under the Greater Bengaluru Authority framework, drawing parallels with the controversial Akrama-Sakrama regularisation policy.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Greater Bengaluru Authority, strongly rejected the allegation. “No unauthorised construction which is governed by that Akrama-Sakrama will be regularised under this scheme. It has nothing to do with that. Kindly record my statement,” he submitted.Mehta defended the policy, stating that additional FAR is capped at 0.6 of the original FAR and does not waive mandatory parking or setback norms. Limited urban land left vertical expansion as the only viable option, he said, with revenue from the scheme going into a dedicated infrastructure fund.The bench, however, voiced strong scepticism. CJI Surya Kant noted the lack of visible improvement in basic infrastructure across towns. “It is not that new roads have been constructed, new sewer lines have been provided, new bus flyovers have been multiplied… 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 observed.The CJI further remarked that builders often disappear after construction, leaving residents to face problems of inadequate parking, water supply and blocked sewerage. Contrasting the approach with planned development in Greater Noida, he said infrastructure there is designed for the next 50 to 100 years. “Today you are first permitting random construction, then you are generating a fund to provide basic amenities. That is problematic,” the CJI said.

Source: Deccan Herald