SRI KRISHNAMURTHY N vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
TH
RESERVED ON 29 APRIL, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1983 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 14959 OF 2020 (BDA-PIL),
WRIT PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
IN WA No. 1983/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY N
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O V NAGRAJAPPA
R AT 84, VENKATESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560064
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI V. SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
ALONG WITH SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE AND
ALSO FOR INTERVENERS)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL
CHIEF SECRETARY AND
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
TH
DEPARTMENT, 4 FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001
3. BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF COMMISSIONER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NR SQUARE
BANGALORE - 560027
4. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
T CHOWDIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560020
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, A.G.,
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP,
MS. ADOORYA BOMAKKA HARISH, ADVOCATE,
SRI ADITHYA C. SHUKAPURI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2,
SRI PRADEEP C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/12/2025
- 3 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.11201/2025 AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF.
IN WP NO. 14959/2020
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYAN MENON
SON OF LATE MR. T.A.G MENON
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
ST
RESIDING AT: NO.33, 1 MAIN
S T BED LAYOUT
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034
2. MAJOR PROMOD KAPUR(RETD)
SON OF LATE MR. SOMNATH KAPUR
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT: NO.13/2, 5 D MAIN
ST
(KRISHNA GARDEN), 1 BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034
3. C N KUMAR
SON OF LATE MR C S NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT: NO.18, 4 CROSS
ST
1 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011
4. NITIN SESHADRI
SON OF LATE MR S T SESHADRI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT: NO.760
TH
8 MAIN ROAD
RD
3 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034
5. SNEHA NANDIHAL
DAUGHTER OF LATE S Y NANDIHAL
- 4 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ND
R/A NO.431, 2 CROSS
FIRST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 038
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DR. HARISH. B. NARASAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
MS. ANARGHYA K. CHANDAR, ADVOCATE,
MS. POORNIMA HATTI, ADVOCATE,
MR. AAKASH SHERWAL, ADVOCATE,
MS. MOULYA SUBBARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE,
MR. SAURAV SUNIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, A.G.,
MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA,
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP,
MS. ADOORYA BOMAKKA HARISH, ADVOCATE
MR. ADITYA C. SHUKAPURI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND
SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY. A.G./SENIOR ADVOCATE
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DECLARE THE BDA AMENDMENT ACT, THE KTCP
AMENDMENT ACT AND THE KTCP AMENDED RULES
- 5 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
NOTIFICATION AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21 AND
243ZE OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 2807/2026
BETWEEN:
1. CITIZENS' ACTION FORUM
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TH
NO.593, 24 CROSS,
ND
BANASHANKARI 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
ROSITA SEQUEIRA
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. KALIGOTLA NITYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
3. GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY
HUDSON CIRCLE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
- 6 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
4. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING
COMMITTEE
GBA HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX
HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE
BANGALORE - 560002
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, A.G.,
MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA,
SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP,
MS. ADOORYA BOMAKKA HARISH, ADVOCATE,
MR. ADITYA C. SHUKAPURI, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND
SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, A.G.,
SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARCILES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
QUASHING THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2020 (IMPUGNED AMENDMENT) PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AS
BEING MANIFESTLY ARBITRARY AND THUS IN VIOLATION OF
ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
- 7 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
INDEX
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................... 8
II. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ....................................................................... 16
III. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) ................................... 25
IV. THE PREMIUM FAR................................................................................... 37
V. IMPUGNED ORDER.................................................................................... 51
VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ............................................................. 55
VII. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. 67
(A) The Premium FAR scheme does not violate Article 300A of the
Constitution ................................................................................................... 68
(B) Section 18-B of the KTCP Act does not suffer from the vice of
Excessive Delegation.................................................................................... 78
(C) The impugned notifications are not Inconsistent with or violative of
Section 18-B of the KTCP Act ....................................................................... 96
(D) Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules is not in conflict with the impugned
notifications ................................................................................................. 104
(E) Section 18-B of the KTCP Act is not inconsistent with Section 14-B
of the KTCP Act and Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules ....................................... 106
(F) The Premium FAR scheme does not violate Article 21 of the
Constitution ................................................................................................. 108
(G) The Premium FAR scheme is not akin to the Akrama Sakrama
scheme ....................................................................................................... 112
(H) Section 18-B and the Premium FAR scheme do not violate Article
243ZE of the Constitution............................................................................ 118
(I) Section 38-D of the BDA Act is valid and not manifestly arbitrary .............. 127
- 8 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. The present Writ Appeal, W.A.No.1983 of 2025 (LB-BMP),
and the connected writ petitions, W.P.No.14959 of 2020 (BDA-PIL)
and W.P.No.2807 of 2026 (GM-RES), raise a common set of
questions concerning the constitutional validity of the statutory
provisions for the grant of “Premium Floor Area Ratio” [ Premium
FAR ]. The import of the scheme of the impugned provisions is to
provide permissions, in terms of the approval to building plans
accorded by the competent Authority, to raise additional
construction over and above the ordinarily permissible Floor Area
Ratio [ FAR ] on payment of charges referred to as Premium
Charges. Since the substratum of the challenge raised in all three
matters is common, they were heard together.
2. The Writ Appeal, W.A No. 1983 of 2025, arises from a
judgment and order dated 05.12.2025 [ the impugned order ]
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11201
of 2025 (LB-BMP) captioned Sri Krishnamurthy N. v. State of
Karnataka and Others connected with W.P.No.6347 of 2025 (LB-
BMP), whereby the said writ petitions were dismissed. The present
- 9 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
appeal is confined to the impugned order insofar as it relates to
W.P.No.11201 of 2025.
3. For the purpose of providing a contextual background to the
challenge raised in the present appeal, we shall briefly refer to the
relevant facts as referred to in W.A. No 1983 of 2025 and the
proceedings from which the said appeal arises. The appellant in
W.A.No.1983 of 2025 — Sri Krishnamurthy N., [ the appellant ] — is
the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No.3/5 of Venkateshpura
Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bengaluru. Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [ BBMP ] issued a notification dated
18.01.2005, notifying a portion of the said land, measuring 432.62
square metres as required for the purpose of widening of the Kogilu-
Sampigehalli Main Road via Agrahara, from the Kogilu Village Bus
Stand to the Shivaramkaranatha Layout Railway Level Crossing via
Sampigehalli. The appellant surrendered the said land for the stated
public purpose. The appellant opted to receive Transferable
Development Rights [ TDR ] in terms of Section 14-B of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [ the KTCP Act ],
read with the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of
- 10 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Development Rights) Rules, 2016 [ the TDR Rules ], as
consideration for surrendering the said land.
4. The appellant executed and registered a Relinquishment
Deed dated 03.09.2015 for transferring the subject land in favour of
BBMP. It is stated that, despite repeated representations, BBMP
and the Bangalore Development Authority [ BDA ] have not issued
the Development Rights Certificate [ DRC ] in favour of the appellant.
5. As noted above, the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 was
passed in W.P.No.11201 of 2025 connected with W.P.No.6347 of
2025 (LB-BMP). The present appeal does not assail the impugned
order insofar as it relates to W.P.No.6347 of 2025. This court is
informed that the said petitioners have not preferred any appeal
against the impugned order.
6. W.P.No.14959 of 2020 (BDA-PIL) was filed on 11.12.2020 by
Sri Vijayan Menon and four other private persons as a public
interest litigation. The petitioners state that they are civic activists
associated with the Citizens’ Action Forum and other civic
organisations, and have filed the said petition to assail:
- 11 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(i) the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment)
Act, 2020 [Karnataka Act No.27 of 2020] [ the BDA
Amendment Act, 2020 ], which was deemed to have
come into force on 10.07.2020, and by which Section
38-D was inserted in the Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 [ the BDA Act ];
(ii) the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Fourth
Amendment) Act, 2020 [Karnataka Act No.25 of 2020]
[ the KTCP Amendment Act, 2020 ] which received the
assent of the Governor on 16.10.2020 and is deemed
to have come into force with effect from 31.07.2020. By
virtue of the said Act, Section 18-B was inserted in the
KTCP Act; and
(iii) a draft notification dated 17.11.2020 issued by the
State Government proposing to introduce Rule 37-E in
the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 [ the
KPA Rules ].
7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court passed an interim order
dated 25.05.2021 in WP No. 14959 of 2020 directing that any action
- 12 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
taken on the basis of the impugned provisions of law shall be
subject to the final outcome of the said petition; and that whenever
any such action is proposed, the parties concerned would be
informed of the pendency of the said petition.
8. W.P.No.2807 of 2026 (GM-RES) was filed on 24.01.2026 by
the Citizens’ Action Forum as a public interest litigation. The said
writ petition was, in its original form, directed against:
(i) the KTCP Amendment Act, 2020, introducing Section
18-B; and
(ii) the notification dated 21.02.2025 bearing No.UDD 78
MNJ 2024 (E) issued by the Government of Karnataka,
introducing Chapter 11 in the Zonal Regulations of the
approved Revised Master Plan-2015 [ RMP-2015 ] of the
Local Planning Area of Bengaluru.
9. The Citizens’ Action Forum filed an amended memorandum of
writ petition on 04.03.2026, additionally assailing the notification
dated 05.02.2026 bearing No. UDD 78 MNJ 2024 (E), by virtue of
which Chapter 11 of the said Zonal Regulations was modified.
- 13 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
10. It is material to note that the challenges raised by the
appellant and by the petitioners in the connected writ petitions are
substantially the same. Broadly speaking, the petitioners impugn:
(i) Section 18-B of the KTCP Act;
(ii) Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules;
(iii) the notifications dated 02.04.2025 (bearing No.UDD
78 MNJ 2024 (E)) — comprising of three notifications,
namely, Notification-I (Bengaluru), Notification-II
(Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Area
Planning Authority [ BMICAPA ]), and Notification-III (the
local planning areas of Anekal, Kanakapura,
Ramanagara, Channapatna, Magadi, Nelamangala,
Bengaluru International Airport Area and Hosakote) —
collectively introducing the scheme of Premium FAR
through amendments to the respective Zonal
Regulations [hereinafter, collectively referred to as ‘ the
impugned notifications ’]; and
(iv) the notifications dated 05.02.2026 bearing No. UDD 78
MNJ 2024 (E) further amending the zonal regulations
as amended by the impugned notifications.
- 14 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
The said notifications (three in number) are hereinafter
collectively referred to as ‘ the 2026 notifications ’. Notification-I
amended Chapter 11 of the Zonal Regulations of the RMP-2015 of
the Local Planning Area of Bengaluru by substituting Regulation 2,
Table No.27, and the foot-note thereunder. The other two
notifications made amendments of a similar effect to the
corresponding Zonal Regulations for the BMICAPA and other local
planning areas. Inasmuch as the scheme introduced by the said
notifications is substantively similar across the several planning
areas, we shall, for the purposes of the present judgment, unless
the context indicates otherwise, refer to Notification-I for considering
the import of the amendments, and refer to it as ‘ the 2026
notification ’. The scheme of granting Premium FAR under Section
18B of the KTCP Act, Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules, the impugned
notifications, the 2026 notifications and other provisions shall be
referred to as ‘ the Premium FAR scheme’ .
11. In W.P.No.14959 of 2020, the petitioners also impugn Section
38-D of the BDA Act as introduced by the BDA Amendment Act,
2020, on the ground that the said provision is manifestly arbitrary
and amounts to legalisation of unauthorised occupation of lands
- 15 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
belonging to the BDA. The petitioners contend that the effect of
Section 38-D of the BDA Act is substantially similar to the ‘ Akrama
Sakrama’ Scheme, the implementation of which has been stayed by
the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11077-11078 of 2017. Except
for this additional question concerning the validity of Section 38-D of
the BDA Act, the substratum of the challenges raised in all three
matters is common.
12. The principal grounds of challenge urged by the appellant and
the writ petitioners are that:
(i) the scheme of Premium FAR is manifestly arbitrary and
falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) the said scheme violates Article 300A of the Constitution
of India inasmuch as it has the effect of denuding the
value of the TDRs which have been granted to land
losers in lieu of monetary compensation, thereby of
depriving them of their property without the authority of
law;
(iii) the Premium FAR scheme runs counter to the right to
planned and sustainable development guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution;
- 16 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(iv) Section 18-B of the KTCP Act suffers from the vice of
excessive delegation;
(v) the impugned notifications and the 2026 notification are
contrary to the parent statute and have not been notified
in the manner prescribed by Section 13-E of the KTCP
Act; and
(vi) the Premium Charges as prescribed under Rule 37-E
and the impugned notifications are at variance with the
parameters prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section
18-B of the KTCP Act.
13. Before adverting to rival submissions and the import of the
reliefs sought by the appellant in the writ appeal, and by the writ
petitioners in the connected matters, it is relevant to set out the
statutory framework in which the controversy involved in the writ
petitions and the present appeal arises.
II. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
14. The KTCP Act was enacted to provide for the regulation of
planned growth of land use and development, and for the making
and execution of town planning schemes, in the State of Karnataka.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act records that
- 17 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
physical planning must precede economic planning, lest cities,
towns and villages of the State grow to unmanageable sizes without
proper planning, resulting in unhealthy surroundings.
15. It is relevant to note the statutory framework within which the
impugned Premium FAR scheme operates. Sub-section (6) of
Section 2 of the KTCP Act defines 'Planning Area' to mean any area
declared to be, or included in, a local planning area under the KTCP
Act. Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the KTCP Act defines 'Planning
Authority' to mean, in respect of the local planning area comprising
the City of Bangalore, the Bangalore Development Authority; and in
respect of any other local planning area, the Planning Authority
constituted under the Act. Sub-section (11) of Section 2 of the KTCP
Act defines “Regulations” as the Zonal Regulations governing land
use made under the Act.
16. Section 9 of the KTCP Act mandates the preparation of a
Master Plan by the Planning Authority. Sub-section (1) of Section 9
reads as under:
“ 9. Preparation of Master Plan . – (1) Every
planning authority shall, as soon as may be, carry
out a survey of the area within its jurisdiction and
shall, not later than two years from the date of
declaration of the local planning area, prepare and
- 18 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
publish in the prescribed manner a master plan for
such area and submit it to the State Government,
through the Director, for provisional approval.”
17. Section 12 of the KTCP Act sets out the contents of the
Master Plan. Explanation (ii) to Section 12(1) of the KTCP Act,
defines the term “Floor Area Ratio”. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 is
set out below:
“ 12. Contents of Master Plan. – (1) The Master
Plan shall consist of a series of maps and
documents indicating the manner in which the
development and improvement of the entire
planning area within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Authority are to be carried out and
regulated, such plan shall include proposals for
the following, namely:—
(a) zoning of land use for residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational
and other purposes together with Zoning
Regulations;
(b) a complete street pattern, indicating major and
minor roads, national highways, and state
highways, and traffic circulation pattern, for
meeting immediate and future requirements with
proposals for improvements;
(c) areas reserved for parks, playgrounds, and
other recreational uses, public open spaces, public
buildings and institutions and area reserved for
such other purposes as may be expedient for new
civic developments;
(d) areas earmarked for future development and
expansion;
(e) reservation of land for the purposes of Central
Government, the State Government, Planning
- 19 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Authority or public utility undertaking or any other
authority established by Law, and the designation
of lands being subject to acquisition for public
purposes or as specified in Master Plan or
securing the use of the landing in the manner
provided by or under this Act;
(f) declaring certain areas, as areas of special
control and development in such areas being
subject to such regulations as may be made in
regard to building line, height of the building, floor
area ratio, architectural features and such other
particulars as may be prescribed;
(g) stages by which the plan is to be carried out.
Explanation:
(i) ‘Building Line’ means the line up to which
the plinth of a building adjoining a street
may lawfully extend and includes the lines
prescribed, if any, in any scheme;
(ii) Floor Area Ratio’ means the quotient of the
ratio of the combined gross floor area of all
the floors, excepting areas specifically
exempted under the regulations, to the total
area of the plot.”
18. Section 13-E of the KTCP Act empowers the State
Government to amend the Regulations. The said Section reads as
under:
“ 13-E. Amendment to Regulations . — The State
Government may, after previous publication of the
draft for not less than one month by notification
make amendments to regulations.”
- 20 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
19. Section 74 of the KTCP Act empowers the State Government
to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 75 of
the Act empowers the Planning Authority to make bye-laws,
consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made
thereunder, to carry out the purposes included in the Master Plan.
The said provisions read as under;
74. Rules .—(1) The State Government may, by
notification and after previous publication, make
rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules may
be made to determine the following matters:—
137[(a) the functions and powers of the Board and
Planning Authorities constituted under Section 4-
C;
(a-1) the qualifications and disqualifications for
being chosen as and for being members of the
Board, and Planning Authorities constituted under
Section 4-C;
(a-2) the manner of nomination of representatives
of local authorities under clause (iii) of sub-section
(3) of Section 4-C;
(a-3) the manner in which and the purposes for
which any Planning Authority may associate with
itself any person under Section 4-F;]
138[(a-4)] the particulars that are to be shown in a
map under Section 6;
(b) the manner of and the procedure to be
followed in making an inquiry under sub-section
(2) of Section 7;
(c) the manner of publication of the 139[Master
Plan] under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
Section 9; or under sub-section (4) of Section 13;
- 21 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(d) the notices to be given under Section 11, 140[*
] or Section 27;
(e) the form of the commencement certificate to be
granted under sub-section (1) of Section 15;
(f) the particulars to be furnished by a person
submitting a lay-out plan under sub-section (1),
the period within which the Planning Authority may
sanction such plan under sub-section (2) and the
manner of holding an inquiry under sub-section (4)
of Section 17;
(g) the betterment fee to be levied and the manner
of levy under Section 18;
(h) *
(i) *
(j) the manner of publication of a declaration of
intention to make a scheme under sub-section (2)
of Section 29;
(k) the manner of publication of a draft scheme
under Section 30;
(j) the further particulars to be included in the draft
scheme under clause (g) of Section 32;
(m) the form of the commencement certificate to
be granted under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 35 and the conditions, if any, to be
included therein;
(n) the procedure to be followed in making an
inquiry under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 35;
(o) the manner in which, and the method
according to which, compensation shall be
payable under sub-section (2) of Section 35;
(p) the qualifications of persons to be appointed as
Director of Town Planning and as Town Planning
Officer;
(q) the procedure that is to be followed by a Town
Planning Officer in making orders under any of the
several clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 38;
- 22 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(r) the form in which the Town Planning Officer is
to draw the final scheme under clause (n) of sub-
section (1) of Section 38;
(s) the procedure to be followed by the officer
appointed to hold an inquiry for the purpose of
deciding a disputed claim as to ownership under
Section 42;
(t) the manner of preparing a preliminary scheme
under Section 43;
(u) the manner of giving notice under Section 44;
(v) the procedure to be followed in summarily
evicting a person under Section 46;
(w) the notice to be given before action is taken
under Section 47;
(x) the manner of publication of a draft variation
under sub-section (2) and the particulars which a
draft variation shall contain under sub-section (3)
of Section 48;
(y) the manner of election of representatives of the
several Planning Authorities under sub-section (2)
of Section 51;
(z) the time to be allowed for making a claim to
compensation under Section 60;
(aa) the period within which payment is to be
made to the Planning Authority under Section 63;
143[(aa-1) the form of the budget of Planning
Authorities, the date on or before which it shall be
prepared, the manner of preparing it and the
number of copies that have to be sent to the Board
and the State Government;
(aa-2) the form of the annual statement of
accounts and balance sheets to be prepared
under Section 68-C;
(aa-3) the form of the annual report of the
Planning Authorities and the dates on or before
which they shall be submitted under Section 68-
D);]
- 23 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(bb) the manner in which documents, plans, maps
shall be made accessible to the public under the
proviso to Section 77;
(cc) the procedure to be adopted by the Planning
Authority to secure co-operation on the part of the
owners or persons interested in the land proposed
to be included in a Town Planning Scheme at
every stage of the proceedings by means of
conferences and such other means as may be
expedient;
(dd) the procedure to be followed by a Town
Planning Officer generally under this Act;
(ee) the extent to which the proceedings of
Planning Authorities under this Act shall be
regulated by any municipal or local law applicable
to such authorities; and
(ee-1) the documents of which copies may be
granted and the fees payable for the inspection of
such documents and the grant of copies thereof;]
(ff) any other matter for which there is no provision
or no sufficient provision in this Act (including
provision relating to appeals, appellate authorities,
time for filing appeals, fees payable in respect of
appeals and other matters), and for which
provision is in the opinion of the State
Government, necessary for giving effect to the
purposes of this Act.
(3) A rule made under this section may provide
that a contravention of any of the provisions of the
rules which are specified in such rule shall be
punishable with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees and in the case of a continuing
contravention, with an additional fine which may
extend to ten rupees for every day during which
such contravention continues after conviction for
the first such contravention.
(3A) Any rule under this Act may be made to have
effect retrospectively and when any such rule is
made a statement specifying the reasons for
making such a rule shall be laid before both
Houses of the State Legislature along with the rule
under sub-section (4). All rules made under this
- 24 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Act shall, subject to any modification made under
sub-section (4), have effect as if enacted in this
Act.
(4) Every rule made under this section shall be laid
as soon as may be after it is made before each
House of the State Legislature while it is in
session for a total period of thirty days which may
be comprised in one session or in two successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session in
which it is so laid or the session immediately
following, both Houses agree in making any
modification in the rule or both Houses agree that
the rule should not be made, the rule shall
thereafter have effect only in such modified form
or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however
that any such modification or annulment shall be
without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule.
75. Bye-laws.—(1) A Planning Authority may, with
the previous sanction of the State Government,
make bye-laws consistent with the provisions of
this Act and the rules thereunder to carry out the
purposes included in the Master Plan.
(2) A bye-law made under this section may
provide that a person contravening any of the
provisions of the bye-lows which are specified in
such bye-law shall on conviction, be punished with
fine, which may extend to one hundred rupees and
in the case of a continuing contravention, with an
additional fine, which may extend to five rupees for
every day during which such contravention
continues after conviction, for the first such
contravention.
(3) The power to make bye-laws under this section
shall be subject to the condition of previous
publication and such publication shall be in the
official Gazette and in such other manner a may
be directed by the State Government.
- 25 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
20. It would be relevant, at this stage, to set out the meaning of
the term Floor Area Ratio [ FAR ]. FAR is, in essence, the ratio of the
total floor area of a building to the area of the plot or site upon which
it is constructed. As is evident from Explanation (ii) to sub-section
(1) of Section 12 of the KTCP Act, FAR is a metric employed in town
planning to regulate urban density by ensuring that the extent of
built-up area on any plot is commensurate with the infrastructure —
including the road width, the availability of water supply, sewage
disposal, drainage, and other civic amenities — available to support
the use and occupation of the buildings. The permissible FAR varies
from zone to zone and is prescribed in the Zonal Regulations of the
Master Plan. RMP-2015 was approved by the State Government
vide Government Order dated 22.06.2007, and has been in force
with effect from 22.06.2007.
III. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)
21. A scheme for the grant of Transferable Development Rights
[ TDR ] was introduced in the State of Karnataka by virtue of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998
[Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004], which received the assent of the
Hon’ble the Governor on 17.03.2004 and was published in the
- 26 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Karnataka Gazette Extra-Ordinary on 03.06.2004. By the said
Amendment Act, Section 14-B was inserted in the KTCP Act. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Amendment Act
recorded, inter alia, that the Act was to provide for grant of
Development Rights to landowners surrendering their land for public
purposes, in the form of Notional Land, which could be utilised
within the planning area for the purposes of additional construction,
in lieu of monetary compensation.
22. Pursuant to Section 14-B of the KTCP Act as originally
enacted, the State Government, by a Government Notification dated
18.01.2005, notified the terms and conditions for the grant of TDR.
23. Thereafter, by virtue of the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning (Amendment) Act, 2015 [Karnataka Act No.38 of 2015],
Section 14-B of the KTCP Act was substituted in its entirety, with
effect from 10.09.2015. Section 14-B, as substituted, reads as
under:
“ 14-B. Benefit of development rights .—(1) In a
Local Planning Are if any Public Authority requires
any ‘Area’ for the public purpose, it shall notify the
same in such manner as may be prescribed and the
owner of such ‘Area’ hands over possession of such
‘Area’ free from all encumbrances to such Public
Authority in lieu of any compensation, under the Right
- 27 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (Act 30 of 2013) or any other law, he shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
regulations, be entitled to be granted Development
Rights (DR) under this section subject to conditions
specified below. The Planning Authority shall issue
Development Rights to such persons not more than
the extent specified in table below, subject to such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) The provisions of this section shall be
applicable to the Local Planning Areas having City
corporation and may be extended to other Local
Planning areas as and when required by the State
Government by notification from time to time.
(3) No Development Rights shall be granted under
this section unless the Public Authority deposits the
amount with Planning Authority equal to the market
value of the area required:
Provided that the Local Authority and Planning
Authority are exempted from such deposition.
(4) The Public Authority intending to obtain
Development Rights in favour of owners shall apply
to the Planning Authority enclosing the list of land
owners who have surrendered the area for the public
purpose as per the provisions in sub-section (1) after
verifying title over such property and ensuring that no
other person has any claim over such property. It
shall also specify the details of entire land or building
so surrendered along with payment of ‘Deposition
Amount’ as per the market value, to the Planning
Authority.
(5) The Planning Authority before issuing
Development Rights shall verify and notify the details
of Area surrendered in the news paper calling
objections and suggestions, if any, for the purpose of
Development Rights and the Development Rights
intended to be issued, after satisfying itself beyond
doubt that the persons claiming Development Rights
is entitled for the same.
- 28 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(6) If the owner does not agree to surrender his
‘Area’ required by a public Authority for any public
purpose, for the Development Rights and demands
for monetary compensation, then the public Authority
may acquire such ‘Area’ by providing compensation
as per the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of
2013) or any other law prevailing.
(7) Any ‘Area owned by Public Authority required
for public purpose by a Local Authority shall also be
eligible to obtain Development Right if such ‘Area is
surrendered to the Local Authority in lieu of any
compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).
(8) The Authority competent to approve Building
plan shall not approve utilization of the Development
Right unless an entry to that effect is made in the
Development Rights Certificate and in the
register/database maintained by the Planning
Authority as prescribed.
(9) The Planning Authority after considering
objections or suggestions received under sub-section
(5) shall verify the details for sanction of Development
Rights and if found eligible issue it in the form of
Development Right Certificate (DRC) under intimation
to the public Authority to the owner specifying the
extent of Notional Land as Development Rights
admissible, subject to such terms and conditions as
may be prescribed or reject it, quoting the reasons
thereof.
Provided that no such application shall be rejected
without giving opportunity of hearing to the public
Authority and the owner of such land.
(10) The Development Rights shall be calculated
based on the land area or building area surrendered
by the owner to any Public Authority free from all
encumbrances and without claiming any
- 29 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
compensation. The Land or building area so
surrendered shall be converted into ‘Notional Land’ to
extent specified in the Table below based on the
value of the land determined on the basis of Market
value notified by the State Government under
the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
(11) The Deposition amount or fee amount
received by the Planning Authority under sub-section
(3) or sub-section (27) shall be kept in a separate
account called Transferable Development Rights
Fund of the Planning Authority and shall be granted
and utilized in the concerned Local Planning Area by
the concerned Local Authority or Planning Authority
in the prescribed manner.
(12) The Development Rights so issued shall be
utilized within the same Local planning Area to which
it is issued.
(13) The Development Rights may be utilized
within the same plot or in any other Area in the same
Local Planning area by the owner or the owner of
such Development Rights may transfer the
Development Rights to somebody else who can use
that Development Rights on any other Area within the
Local Planning area, as Transferable Development
Rights.
(14) The utilisation of Development Rights at the
receiving plot shall be subject to limitations, as may
be prescribed.
(15) Whenever the owner sells the Development
Rights, it shall be registered in the Planning Authority
after due entry in the register/database and on the
Development Rights Certificate.
(16) No transfer or utilization of the Development
Right shall be valid unless it is registered by the
Planning Authority.
(17) The Planning Authority shall maintain a
register/database and shall make entry of issue,
transfer or utilization of Development Rights granted
- 30 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
under this section in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(18) Issue, transfer or utilization of the
Development Rights may be done through electronic
form and through internet in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(19) The State Government shall establish a State
level Development rights monitoring authority
consisting of such number of members as may be
prescribed to keep track of all transactions of
Development Rights. It shall also have power to
inspect, verify the records of concerned planning
Authority pertaining to these transactions. It shall also
have power to prosecute persons responsible for
illegal or fraudulent transactions in contravention of
the provisions of this section.
(20) No person shall be eligible for the
Development Rights for the surrender of the areas
earmarked for road, parks or common open spaces
and Civic Amenity sites to the Planning Authority or
Local Authority while obtaining permission for
formation of layouts or development any land under
Section 15 or 17.
(21) The Planning Authority shall periodically
publish total number of Development Rights issued,
transferred and the balance remaining in each Local
Planning Area and the name of the holder in such
manner as may be prescribed.
(22) Any person aggrieved by any order of the
Planning Authority may appeal to such Appellate
Authority, in such manner, as may be prescribed. The
appellate Authority may dispose the application with
such direction as it deems fit. The decision of the
appellate Authority shall be final.
(23) Any person who fraudulently create any
Development Rights Certificate or fraudulently
transfers Development Rights shall on conviction be
liable for an imprisonment for not less than one year
which may be extended to three years and to a fine
- 31 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
which may extend to double the value of amount
cheated by him.
(24) The member secretary of the Planning
Authority, shall be responsible to file complaint before
the Court regarding the offences committed under
this section.
(25) In case of any dispute arising over the
ownership of the ‘Area’ surrendered, where the
Development Rights Certificate issued for such Area’
is already transferred and utilized by any person
other than the person who has surrendered the Area’,
such claims shall be restricted only to the extent of
eligibility of compensation from the person who has
surrendered the ‘Area’ for Development Right. The
Public Authority which verified the claims shall also
be responsible for the wrong recommendation for
issue of Development Right. It shall make good the
loss occurred by it.
(26) All Development Rights issued before the
commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall also be
entered in the register/database maintained under
this section in the same manner specified herein.
(27) Necessary fees as prescribed shall be
collected by the Planning Authority for registering any
transaction of issue, transfer or utilization of
Development Rights Certificate.
(28) Every Transaction pertaining to issue,
utilization or transfer of Development Rights and the
Transferable Development Rights Fund of the
Planning Authority created under sub-section (11)
shall be audited every year by such officer as may be
prescribed. The audit report alongwith compliance
shall be sent to the Government by the concerned
planning authority and the Government shall place
the same before both the houses of the State
legislature.
- 32 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
TABLE
(see sub-section (1))
QUANTUM OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ADMISSIBLE
Sl.
No.
PURPOSE FOR WHICH LAND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
SURRENDERED
ADMISSIBLE
1. Land Development Rights
(i) Any road widening/any road
formation as proposed in
Master Plan or as proposed by
the Local Authority or
Developing Authority.
(ii) Any infrastructure Projects
approved by the Government
(Transportation Water Supply,
Sewage, Electricity, etc.,..)
Development Right in the
form of “Notional land”
which shall be equal to:
(a) two times of the Area
surrendered;
(b) two times of the total
area surrendered, in case
the remaining area after
surrendering the required
portion for public purpose
has become incapable of
reasonable beneficial use.
(iii) Providing for parking, parks, play
grounds and open spaces or any
other public places proposed in the
Master Plan or proposed by Local
Authority
(iv) Providing EWS/LIG/ affordable
housing.
(v) Any other public purpose notified
by the Government from time to time
2. Building Development Rights
All types of authorized buildings Development Rights in the
form of notional land
which shall be equal to
one time the land area
derived by dividing the
value of the
building/portion of the
building surrendered, by
- 33 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
the market value of the
land/plot on which the
building is situated. The
method of valuation of
building shall be as
prescribed.
Note .—The Development Rights in the form of
‘Notional Land’ shall be multiplied by the permissible
Floor Area Ratio of the plot where Development
Rights or transferable Development Rights is
proposed to be utilized, to derive the additional Floor
Area eligible for that plot due to utilization of
Development Rights or Transferable Development
Rights.
Explanation .—for the purpose of this section,—
( a ) “Area” means land/plot or land and building/portion of
building thereon.
( b ) “Deposition Amount” means the amount to be
remitted by any Public Authority intending to acquire
the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Local
Planning Area. This amount shall be equal to the
market value of the area to be acquired;
( c ) “Development Rights (DR)” means the right given for
development of land within the Local Planning Area in
the form of “Notional Land” to an owner who
surrenders the area of land or building required for
public purpose without claiming any compensation.
( d ) “Development Right Certificate (DRC)” means the
certificate of Development Rights issued to owner;
( e ) “EWS/LIG” means such class of person as may be
notified by the State Government from time to time;
( f ) “Floor Area” means the floor area defined in the
respective Zonal Regulations;
( g ) “Market value” means the value determined as per
the guidance value of land in accordance with a
Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957;
( h ) “Notional Land” means the Development Rights in the
form of theoretical land area and not in the form of
real/physical land area, in lieu of compensation;
- 34 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
( i ) “Public Authority” means the Planning Authority, Local
Authority or an authority or a body owned and
controlled by the State Government, Central
Government or by both State and Central
Government jointly having Authority by laws to
acquire, hold and dispose of property together;
( j ) “Public purpose”, means and includes for the
purposes of,—
( i ) Any road widening/any road formation as proposed in
Master Plan or as proposed by the Local Authority;
( ii ) Any Infrastructure projects approved by the
Government (Transportation, Water Supply, Sewage,
Electricity, etc.,..)
( iii ) Providing for parking, parks, playgrounds and open
spaces or any other public places proposed in the
master plan or proposed by Local Authority except
cases under Section 15 and 17;
( iv ) Providing EWS/LIG/affordable housing; and
( v ) Any other public purpose notified by the Government
from time to time.”
( k ) “Transferable Development Rights” (TDR) means the
Development Right given in the form of ‘Notional
Land’ to an owner, which can be sold or disposed or
utilised elsewhere in the Local Planning Area. The
DR of the ‘Area’ surrendered in the form of ‘Notional
Land’, shall be permitted as TDR only after factorising
the Market Value of the Originating Plot and the
Receiving Plot, as specified in the Terms and
Conditions.”
24. As is evident from a plain reading of Section 14-B of the
KTCP Act, as substituted by Karnataka Act No.38 of 2015, the
scheme of TDR enables a landowner whose land is required by a
Public Authority for any of the specified public purposes (such as
road widening, formation of new roads, infrastructure projects, parks
- 35 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
and playgrounds, for providing EWS/LIG/affordable housing, or any
other public purpose notified by the Government) to surrender the
said land free from all encumbrances in consideration for
Transferable Development Rights [ TDR ] in the form of “Notional
Land”. The TDR, under the Zonal Regulations, translates into
approvals to construct additional floor area, which may be utilised
either on the originating plot or on any other plot (recipient plot)
within the same Local Planning Area, whether owned by the
landowner or a third party.
25. Sub-section (6) of Section 14-B preserves the option of the
landowner to decline TDRs and claim monetary compensation
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [ the 2013
Act ] or any other law for the time being in force.
26. The Note appended to Section 14-B clarifies that the
Development Rights in the form of “Notional Land” shall be
multiplied by the permissible Floor Area Ratio of the plot where the
said Development Rights are proposed to be utilised in order to
derive the additional Floor Area eligible for that plot. In other words,
Notional Land does not translate one-to-one into additional built-up
- 36 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
area; rather, it is a base for determining the additional floor area that
can be loaded on the recipient plot.
27. The State Government framed the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules, 2016
[ TDR Rules ], for the purposes of implementing Section 14B of the
KTCP Act. The said rules were notified on 04.03.2017 and came
into effect from the said date. The said Rules, inter alia, set out the
procedure for verification of title, the manner of issuance of the
Development Rights Certificate, the manner of computation of
Notional Land, and the conditions subject to which TDRs may be
utilised. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the TDR Rules provides that the
maximum extent of TDR (additional floor area ratio) that may be
loaded onto any building site of the receiving plot shall not exceed
0.6 times the ordinarily permissible Floor Area Ratio. Sub-rule (5) of
Rule 4 prescribes that the minimum road width on the receiving plot
shall not be less than 9.0 metres.
28. It is relevant to note that the State Government issued a
Notification dated 21.04.2026 bearing No.UDD 193 MNJ 2026 (E) in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 76-K of the KTCP
Act, inter alia clarifying that the provisions of Chapter 10 of the
- 37 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Zonal Regulations of the RMP-2015 — which contained the
provisions concerning TDRs — stand superseded and are
inoperative with effect from 04.03.2017, being the date on which the
TDR Rules came into force. By virtue of the said notification, clause
3.4(vi) of Chapter 3 of the said Zonal Regulations, which had been
inserted vide Notification No.UDD 112 MNJ 2015 dated 29.09.2018
to provide for impact zone Premium FAR, was also withdrawn with
effect from 16.06.2021, being the date on which Rule 37-E of the
KPA Rules came into force.
IV. THE PREMIUM FAR
29. Section 18-B was inserted in the KTCP Act by virtue of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Fourth Amendment) Act,
2020 [Karnataka Act No.25 of 2020], which received the assent of
the Governor on 16.10.2020 and was first published in the
Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on 19.10.2020. By Section 1(2) of
the said Amendment Act, the same was deemed to have come into
force with effect from 31.07.2020. Section 18-B as inserted reads as
under:
“ 18-B. Levy of premium charges for grant of
Premium Floor Area Ratio . — (1) The Authority
may grant permission for premium floor area ratio
- 38 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
in the areas identified for the purpose in the Zonal
regulations of the master plan.
(2) Where an application is made for grant of
permission for utilisation of premium floor area
ratio for the development of a building under
Section 15, the Authority may levy premium
charges, at such rate, not less than fifty per cent of
the estimated increase in value of land and
building as may be prescribed by the Government
from time to time, for grant of premium floor area
ratio, not exceeding the limits as specified in the
zonal regulations of the master plan.
Explanation. — For the purpose of this section,
‘premium floor area ratio’ means additional floor
area ratio permitted over and above the ordinary
permissible floor area ratio.”
30. As is evident from a plain reading of Section 18-B, sub-
section (1) empowers the “Authority” to grant permission for
Premium FAR in the areas identified for the purpose in the Zonal
Regulations of the Master Plan. Sub-section (2) provides that,
where an application is made for grant of permission for utilisation of
Premium FAR for the development of a building under Section 15 of
the Act, the Authority may levy Premium Charges, at such rate, not
less than fifty per cent of the estimated increase in the value of land
and building as may be prescribed by the Government from time to
time, for the grant of Premium FAR, not exceeding the limits as
specified in the Zonal Regulations of the Master Plan. The
- 39 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Explanation to Section 18-B clarifies that “premium floor area ratio”
means additional floor area ratio permitted over and above the
ordinarily permissible floor area ratio.
31. Thereafter, by a Notification dated 16.06.2021, the Karnataka
Planning Authority (Amendment) Rules, 2021 were notified. By
virtue of the said Rules, Rule 37-E was inserted in the Karnataka
Planning Authority Rules, 1965, prescribing the manner and rate of
levy of charges in case of permission for utilising Premium FAR.
Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules, which is also subject matter of
challenge, reads as under:
“ 37-E. Charges to be levied in case of
permission for utilizing Premium FAR . —
(1) Wherever impact zones have been identified
for grant of premium Floor area ratio (hereinafter
referred to as FAR) and in any other areas
specified for this purpose in the Zonal Regulations
of the approved Master plans in force. The
Premium F.A.R over and above the ordinarily
permissible F.A.R not exceeding 0.6 times of the
permissible F.A.R may be allowed in the building
site, abutting minimum road width of 9m and
above, on levying Premium FAR charges as
prescribed below, namely:—
Premium FAR charges:—
(i) The guidance value of the developed site shall
be taken as the base value;
- 40 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(ii) Premium FAR charges shall not be less than
50% of the guidance value of the additional
(notional) sital area.
Note: For the purpose of these rules, the term
‘Additional (Notional) sital area’ means the
additional sital area that would be required for the
building derived from the premium FAR permitted
as an additional FAR above the permissible FAR.
(iii) The Premium FAR charges collected shall be
deposited in a separate Head of Account of the
Planning Authority or Local Authority which issues
building plan.
(iv) The Premium charges so collected shall be
utilised as below:
(a) 50% of the charges collected shall be utilised
for the purpose of acquiring land and shifting of
utilities related to the purpose for which F.A.R
is issued.
(b) 50% of the charges collected by the Authority
shall be utilised for developing infrastructure
related to the purpose for which F.A.R is
issued. In case the agency developing
infrastructure is separate from the authority
which is collecting the premium F.A.R charges,
then the authority shall transfer this amount to
the concerned agency which is developing the
infrastructure and responsible for the activity
for which F.A.R is issued, i.e., in case of sub-
urban rail to the special purpose vehicle (SPV)
formed for that purpose, in case of Metro to the
company/SPV which is implementing the
project etc.”
32. It is material to note that Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules
contemplates the identification of “impact zones” for the grant of
Premium FAR. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules provides
- 41 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
that the Premium FAR over and above the ordinarily permissible
FAR, not exceeding 0.6 times the permissible FAR, may be allowed
in any building site abutting a road with a minimum width of 9
metres and above, on levy of Premium Charges as prescribed
thereunder. The said charges are to be levied on the basis that (i)
the guidance value of the developed site shall be taken as the base
value; and (ii) the Premium FAR charges shall not be less than 50%
of the guidance value of the additional (notional) sital area. The
Note appended to the Rule defines “Additional (Notional) sital area”
as the additional sital area that would be required for the building,
derived from the Premium FAR permitted as additional FAR above
the permissible FAR.
33. In the year 2024, the State Government introduced the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, 2024,
proposing further amendments to Section 18-B of the KTCP Act
inter alia, providing that the maximum additional FAR which could
be granted as Premium FAR shall not exceed 0.6 times the
ordinarily permissible FAR.
34. By a draft notification dated 04.01.2025 bearing No.UDD 78
MNJ 2024 (E), published in Part IVA of the Karnataka Extraordinary
- 42 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Gazette, the State Government set out the amendments proposed
to:
(i) the Zonal Regulations of the RMP-2015 of the Local
Planning Area of Bengaluru;
(ii) the Master Plan of the BMICAPA; and
(iii) the Master Plans of the local planning areas of Anekal,
Kanakapura, Ramanagara, Channapatna, Magadi,
Nelamangala, Bengaluru International Airport Area and
Hosakote.
35. The State Government invited objections and suggestions
from all persons likely to be affected thereby within thirty days from
the date of publication. By a representation dated 27.01.2025, the
Citizens’ Action Forum —the petitioner in W.P.No.2807 of 2026 —
submitted its objections to the State Government in regard to the
said draft notification.
36. By a notification dated 21.02.2025 bearing No.UDD 78 MNJ
2024 (E), the State Government notified the regulations under
Section 13-E of the KTCP Act, with effect from 25.02.2025. The said
- 43 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
notification led the Citizens’ Action Forum to file W.P.No.2807 of
2026.
37. It is relevant to note that the notification dated 21.02.2025 was
withdrawn by a subsequent notification dated 02.04.2025. The said
notification provided that the earlier notification was “not operated by
the concerned authorities” and was withdrawn with effect from
25.02.2025 “after taking into consideration the administrative
convenience”. The petitioners contend that the said withdrawal-and-
substitution mechanism was, in substance, a device to introduce the
impugned scheme with retrospective effect from 25.02.2025, without
affording the public the opportunity of submitting fresh objections to
the substantively altered regulations.
38. By the impugned notifications, all dated 02.04.2025 and
bearing the same number No.UDD 78 MNJ 2024 (E) — comprising
of:
(i) Notification-I (the Framing of Zonal Regulations
for the Revised Master Plan, 2015 of the Local
Planning Area of Bengaluru and Greater
Bengaluru (Amendment) Regulations, 2025);
- 44 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(ii) Notification-II (the Framing of Regulations of the
Local Planning Area of the Bengaluru-Mysuru
Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority
(BMICAPA) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025);
and
(iii) Notification-III (the Framing of Zonal Regulations
of the Local Planning Areas of Planning
Authorities within the Bengaluru Metropolitan
Region (Amendment) Regulations, 2025).
The State Government, in exercise of its powers under
Section 13-E of the KTCP Act, made the following amendments to
the zonal regulations effective from 25.02.2025:
(i) by Notification-I, Chapter 11 was inserted in the Zonal
Regulations of the approved Revised Master Plan-2015
of the Local Planning Area of Bengaluru;
(ii) by Notification-II, Section 5 was inserted in the Zonal
Regulations of the approved Master Plan of the
BMICAPA; and
(iii) by Notification-III, a new chapter (titled ‘Premium F.A.R
Granted by Levy of Premium Charges’) was inserted in
- 45 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
the Zonal Regulations of the approved Master Plans of
the local planning areas of Anekal, Kanakapura,
Ramanagara, Channapatna, Magadi, Nelamangala,
Bengaluru International Airport Area and Hosakote.
These notifications are substantively similar in their effect.
39. The relevant extract of Chapter 11 of the Zonal Regulations of
the approved Revised Master Plan-2015 of the Local Planning Area
of Bengaluru, as inserted vide the impugned notification
(Notification-I dated 02.04.2025) reads as under:
“ CHAPTER-11: PREMIUM F.A.R GRANTED BY
LEVY OF PREMIUM CHARGES .
1. The Premium F.A.R by levy of premium charges
is the additional FAR granted over and above the
ordinarily permissible F.A.R, on the basis of levy of
premium charges by the Authority who accords
permission for development of building or land
under section 15 of the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act, 1961, and in the areas as
specified under regulation 2 below.
2. The maximum additional FAR available for
utilization for development of additional area in
any property by purchase of Premium FAR shall
be not more than the maximum extent given in the
table below and only on such roads and areas as
given in table below:
Provided that in order to utilize the full extent of
the additional FAR, the Premium FAR shall be
- 46 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
utilized along with the DRCs/TDRs issued under
section 14B, as per table given below.
Table No.27
Maximum
additional
F.A.R via
Premium F.A.R
which may be
granted by
levy of charges
Maximum
permissible
additional
F.A.R for a
property for
which
Premium
F.A.R by levy
of charges is
granted
Areas as
defined by the
Road Width
where
Premium FAR
may be issued
(m)
The
additional
F.A.R which
may be
availed
using
D.R.C/T.D.R
along with
the Premium
FAR
(1) (2) (3) (4)
>9, <=12 0.2 0.2 NIL
>12, <=18 0.4 0.3 0.1
>18 0.6 0.4 0.2
Entries in column (2), (3) and (4) are in multiples
of permissible FAR.
NOTE 1: If Premium FAR is used for a property
then as per above table the maximum permissible
additional FAR shall be as per Col (2) and the said
maximum additional F.A.R should be taken
subject to maximum limit on Premium F.A.R as
per Column (3) and anything more than that
should be utilized from the D.R.C/T.D.R.
Note 2: The maximum additional FAR allowed for
a given building site shall not be more than 60% of
the regular FAR otherwise allowed free of cost.
This could be availed either as combination of
Premium FAR and TDR/DRC as given in Table
- 47 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
above or purely through purchase of the
DRC/TDR.
3. The Premium FAR shall be granted by the
Bruhat Bengaluru MahanagaraPalike within its
jurisdiction:
Provided that, for the areas beyond BBMP
jurisdiction the concerned Local Planning Authority
shall be the competent authority to grant the
Premium FAR.
4. The Premium F.A.R granted by levy of premium
charges, not exceeding limits as specified in
Regulation 2, may be allowed at the building site
abutting road width of more than 9m.
5. Premium FAR charges, —
(i) The guidance value of the developed site on the
same plot and put to same use as intended to be
built using Premium FAR, shall be taken as the
base value.
(ii) Premium FAR charges shall be 50% of the
guidance value of the additional notional sital area:
Provided that Premium FAR charges per square
metre of the additional area built shall not be less
than 28% of the rate of the Guidance Value per
square metre of building site on which building is
proposed.
*
10. The Premium F.A.R shall not be transferrable
and must be utilised only at the building site for
which it is issued."
- 48 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
40. As is clear from a perusal of Regulation 2 of Chapter 11, the
maximum additional FAR available for utilisation including by
purchase of Premium FAR was classified under three slabs based
on road width — being 0.2 times the permissible FAR for areas
abutting roads of width greater than 9 metres and up to 12 metres;
0.4 times for roads of width greater than 12 metres and up to 18
metres; and 0.6 times for roads of width greater than 18 metres. Out
of the said maximum additional FAR, the maximum extent of FAR
that could be acquired on payment of Premium Charges was
capped at 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 times, respectively. The balance could be
utilised through TDR. Further, Note 1 to the table as set out
provided that where Premium FAR was used for a property, the said
maximum additional FAR would be subject to the maximum limit of
Premium FAR as per Column (3), and anything more than the said
limit could be availed only by utilising DRC/TDR. Note 2 capped the
total additional FAR for any building site at 60% of the regular FAR,
otherwise allowed. Regulation 5 of Chapter 11 prescribed the
manner of computation of Premium FAR charges. Regulation 10 of
Chapter 11 records that the Premium FAR shall not be transferable
and must be utilised only at the building site for which it is issued.
- 49 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
41. Subsequent to the constitution of the Greater Bengaluru
Authority [ GBA ] under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act,
2024, with effect from 24.04.2025, and the consequential
constitution of five City Corporations in place of the BBMP, the State
Government issued the impugned 2026 second notification dated
05.02.2026 bearing No.UDD 78 MNJ 2024 (E). By the said
notification, which was issued in exercise of powers under Section
13-E of the KTCP Act, Regulation 2, Table No. 27, and the footnote
thereunder, of Chapter 11 of the Zonal Regulations of the approved
RMP-2015 of the Local Planning Area of Bengaluru were
substituted. Parallel amendments were made to Section 5 of the
Zonal Regulations of the BMICAPA and to the corresponding
chapter in the Zonal Regulations of the approved Master Plans of
the local planning areas of Anekal, Kanakapura, Ramanagara,
Channapatna, Magadi, Nelamangala, Bengaluru International
1
Airport Area, and Hosakote .
42. The effect of the 2026 notification, in substance, is to permit
the grant of additional FAR up to 0.6 times of the ordinarily
1
These notifications as referred to earlier, are collectively referred to as ' the
2026 notifications' . We shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, refer to
Notification-I (as substituted) as ‘the 2026 notification’
- 50 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
permissible FAR in respect of all sites abutting roads having a
minimum width of 9 metres — irrespective of the slab in which the
road would have hitherto fallen. The differential between the regime
under the impugned notifications and the 2026 notifications is
illustrated in the tabular statement set out by the petitioner in
W.P.No.2807 of 2026, which is reproduced below:
A B C D
Maximum
additional
FAR per
Impugned
Second
Notification
Road Width Maximum
additional
FAR per
Impugned
Notification
Difference
(D = B - A)
i. 9m – 12m 0.2 0.6 0.4
(+200% from
B)
ii. 12m – 18m 0.4 0.6 0.2
(+50% from B)
iii. >18m 0.6 0.6 —
43. It is also relevant to note that under the regime introduced by
the impugned notifications dated 02.04.2025, the Premium FAR was
to be granted by the BBMP within its territorial jurisdiction, and by
the concerned Local Planning Authority for areas outside the BBMP
jurisdiction. Pursuant to the constitution of the GBA and the
- 51 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
consequential reconstitution of the urban local bodies in the Greater
Bengaluru Area, the 2026 notification amended the clause referring
to the competent authority to provide that the Premium FAR shall be
granted by the respective City Corporations in the Greater
Bengaluru Area, within their jurisdiction, and by the concerned
Planning Authority outside the Local Planning Area of Greater
Bengaluru.
V. IMPUGNED ORDER
44. By the impugned order dated 05.12.2025, the learned Single
Judge dismissed W.P.No.11201 of 2025 along with W.P.No.6347 of
2025. The learned Single Judge examined the relevant provisions of
the KTCP Act, the KPA Rules and the impugned notifications, and
the principal contentions advanced by the petitioners.
45. The learned Single Judge observed that, by way of the
introduction of TDR, a person who surrenders land can, instead of
monetary compensation, request for allotment of TDR, by which he
can either put up additional construction on the notified area or sell
the same in favour of third parties for consideration; the said third
parties, in turn, can utilise the TDR for additional construction in a
notified area over and above what is permitted by the existing FAR.
- 52 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
By virtue of the introduction of Section 18-B of the KTCP Act, the
State has permitted a person to pay an amount to the State and
obtain permission to put up additional construction on a land over
and above the permitted FAR.
46. The learned Single Judge observed that both Premium FAR
and TDR are intended to permit landowners to put up additional
construction over and above the FAR otherwise permitted, on
payment of consideration. Whereas, in case of Premium FAR the
consideration is paid to the State, in case of TDR it is paid to the
person who owns the TDR. The effect of additional construction as
permitted by utilization of Premium FAR and TDR is the same. The
learned Single Judge held that in the given circumstances the
petitioners before the learned Single Judge, cannot urge the ground
that Premium FAR is manifestly arbitrary on the basis that it
regularises illegal buildings; that the additional built-up area on
account of Premium FAR will violate Article 21 of the Constitution of
India; or that the amendment introducing Premium FAR is contrary
to the object of the KTCP Act.
47. On the question of excessive delegation, the learned Single
Judge held that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate how
- 53 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Section 18-B of the KTCP Act suffers from excessive delegation;
that prescribing the details pertaining to Premium FAR is best left to
the executive depending upon the situation; and that the delegated
legislation is not excessive. The impugned notifications cannot be
construed as contrary to Section 14-B of the KTCP Act. The said
notifications are passed in furtherance of Section 18-B, and the
provisions of Sections 14-B and 18-B have to be harmoniously
construed. The learned Single Judge also rejected the contentions
regarding the retrospective operation of the impugned notifications
or the alleged inconsistency between the rate of Premium Charges
prescribed in Rule 37-E and in the impugned notifications on the
one hand, and Section 18-B of the KTCP Act on the other.
Additionally, the court also rejected the contention that the issuance
of the impugned notifications suffered procedural infirmities.
48. On the question of the alleged adverse effect of Premium
FAR on the holders of TDR, the learned Single Judge observed that
the introduction of Premium FAR may have the effect of reducing
the value of TDR held by such persons; however, it is not in dispute
that for a person owning a bigger site, the maximum additional FAR
(as per the impugned amendment and the impugned notifications)
- 54 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
can be achieved only by utilising TDR. It is not possible for a person
to achieve the maximum additional FAR merely by using Premium
FAR. The learned Single Judge further observed that any person
wanting to commercially exploit a piece of land in a city like
Bengaluru, in the usual course of business practice, would put up a
construction by utilising the maximum permissible FAR, and the
same can, in such a case, be done only by purchasing TDR from
private individuals.
49. On the basis of the said reasoning, the learned Single Judge
concluded that the State's policy cannot be said to violate the
petitioners' rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, nor
can the impugned amendment and the impugned notifications
regarding Premium FAR be considered arbitrary and unreasonable.
The learned Single Judge also observed that the concept of
Premium FAR is prevalent in cities such as Mumbai and
Ahmedabad outside Karnataka.
50. The impugned order, insofar as it pertains to W.P.No.11201 of
2025, is assailed by the appellant in the present appeal.
- 55 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
51. Mr. V.Srinivasan Raghavan, learned Senior Advocate,
advanced submissions on behalf of the appellant in W.A.No.1983 of
2025; Dr. Harish Narasappa, learned Senior Advocate advanced
submissions on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.14959 of 2020;
Ms.K.Nitya, learned counsel advanced submissions on behalf of the
petitioner in W.P No.2807 of 2026 and the learned Advocate
General countered the submissions on behalf of the State.
52. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the
petitioners were broadly on similar lines. However, Dr Narasappa
also advanced submissions assailing the provisions of Section 38-D
of the BDA Act.
53. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and the
petitioners are summarised hereafter.
54. It is contended that Premium FAR has an adverse effect on
TDR holders in as much as it denudes the value of TDRs. Thus, the
introduction of the Premium FAR scheme violates Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. In Kukreja Construction Co. v. State of
- 56 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
2
Maharashtra , the Supreme Court had recognised TDR as
compensation for the acquisition of land, and therefore, this property
was protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He
contended that the State had an obligation to ensure that the use of
TDR is not impeded in any manner and that its value is realised to
the fullest extent. The counsel further contended that the Premium
Charges, the value of which Premium FAR was offered under the
impugned notifications, are in the nature of predatory pricing . The
value of TDR is equivalent to the value of the notional physical land.
The transfer of TDR also entails the associated cost of stamp duty
and registration fee. It was submitted that, in addition, the buyer
would also incur costs for conducting due diligence and other
attendant costs associated with the sale and purchase of immovable
property. However, as far as Premium FAR is concerned, it would
be available at 28% to 50% of the land’s guidance value, without
any associated stamp duty or registration costs. The learned
counsel submitted that no builder would purchase TDR if he could
acquire Premium FAR at fraction of its value.
2
2024 SCC Online SC 2547
- 57 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
55. Second, the counsel contended that there was no specified
ratio for a combined usage of TDR with Premium FAR, and thus,
there was no obligation on the part of the person purchasing
Premium FAR to purchase TDR as well. He submitted that, out of
the permissible additional 0.6 FAR, the developer could acquire 0.4
FAR by payment of Premium Charges. There would be no
requirement for him to purchase any TDR if he is satisfied with the
additional 0.4 FAR. He submitted that the restriction excludes the
use of Premium FAR for developing plots abutting roads with a
width greater than 9 metres and up to 12 metres, but that would
offer little relief to the TDR owners, as most construction is
permissible only on plots exceeding 360 sq. mtrs. Thus, the primary
demand of FAR would be for the real estate developments on roads
wider than 12 metres.
56. Third, they contended that providing Premium FAR within the
additional FAR reserved for TDR (0.6 times the base FAR) is
contrary to Section 14-B of the KTCP Act, which permits loading of
TDRs on recipient plots to the extent of 0.6 times the base FAR.
57. Fourth, it was contended that Chapter IV of the Zonal
Regulations provide for different FARs for different zones based on
- 58 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
the activities undertaken, the land use, the size of the plot, and the
width of the road. However, the impugned notification completely
overlooks the rationale for providing different FARs for different
zones. Thus, the introduction of Premium FAR is manifestly arbitrary
and violates the Zonal Regulations.
58. Next, it was contended that the Premium charges as provided
in the impugned notifications are contrary to Rule 37-E of the Rules.
The learned Senior counsel contended that under Section 18-B of
the KTCP Act, the Premium Charges are to be levied at not less
than 50% of the estimated increase in value of the land and
building. However, under the impugned rule, the Premium Charges
must be at least 50% of the guidance value of the additional
(notional) sital area. The impugned notification also provides a
different value.
59. The learned counsel also contended that the impugned
notification was not published as required under the KTCP Act and
was therefore liable to be set aside on that ground. It was
contended that the impugned notification operates retrospectively,
which is not permissible.
- 59 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
60. Mr. V.Srinivasan Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel,
submitted that the concept of Premium FAR was contrary to the
object of the KTCP Act, which is the planned growth, land use, and
development. He submitted that the purpose of introducing Premium
FAR is not to promote planned growth or development, but merely
to generate revenue. He contended that the impugned section and
the notifications are without application of mind and not based on
any scientific principle or basis.
61. He contended that the Premium FAR violates Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, as it would lead to the mushrooming of high-
rise construction across the city, worsening existing traffic
congestion and straining water supply and utilities. He contended
that such development would affect air quality, block light, and
deteriorate overall civic life in Bengaluru. He also referred to the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction
3
Company v. Union of India , K.R Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil
4 5
Nadu , Noel Harper v. Union of India , Bangalore International
Airport Planning Area Authority v. Birla Super Bulk Terminal &
3
( 2020) 17 SCC 324
4
(1996) 2 SCC 226
5
( 2023) 3 SCC 544
- 60 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
6 7
Others and Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu in
support of his contentions.
62. Dr. Harish Narasappa contended that Section 18-B of the
KTCP Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is
based solely on the financial capacity of a person to purchase
additional FAR without any rational nexus with the object of the
KTCP Act. He contended that the said section failed to further the
object of the KTCP Act and, therefore, it is also liable to be set aside
as manifestly arbitrary. He submitted that the KTCP Act fails to
identify the authority competent to grant FAR and is therefore
unconstitutional.
63. Next, he submitted that Section 18-B of the KTCP Act, read
with Rule 37-E, constitutes excessive and unconstitutional
delegation of powers, as it delegates an essential legislative
function. He submitted that Section 18-B does not lay down any
policy or guidelines for the grant of Premium FAR. It also does not
identify planning considerations, conditions for the grant of Premium
FAR, or the quantum of additional FAR that could be permitted. He
6
(
2018) 13 SCR 635
7
(2006) 4 CTC 483
- 61 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
submitted that these essential aspects of legislative policy are
sought to be delegated. He submitted that Section 18-B of the
KTCP Act effectively substituted the Akrama Sakrama scheme,
introduced by virtue of Section 76-FF of the KTCP Act. He
submitted that the said scheme had been stayed by the Supreme
Court by orders passed in SLP (C) Nos. 11077-78/2017. However,
the Premium FAR scheme had indirectly sought to reintroduce a
scheme under which excessive construction could be regularised by
purchase of Premium FAR.
64. He submitted Section 38-D of the BDA Act, Section 18-B of
KTCP Act and Rule 37-E of the Rules violates Article 21 of the
Constitution of India as they would lead to increase in unauthorised
and unplanned constructions. He relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Friends Colony Development Committee v.
8
State of Orissa . On the strength of the said decision, he submitted
that illegal and unauthorised constructions pose a serious threat to
ecology and environment and cause unbearable burden on
infrastructure, including water supply, sewerage and traffic
movement.
8
( 2004) 8 SCC 733
- 62 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
65. Next, he submitted Rule 37-E of the Rules and the impugned
notifications had been issued without the involvement of the
Bengaluru Metropolitan Planning Committee [ BMPC ] and, therefore,
are violative of Article 243ZE of the Constitution of India.
66. Ms K.Nitya, learned counsel, submitted that Section 18-B of
the KTCP Act, the impugned notification and the 2026 notifications
are manifestly arbitrary as they are not based on any principle of
planning. She emphasised that under Section 18-B of the KTCP
Act, Premium FAR could be granted only in areas identified by the
authorities in the zonal regulations and the master plan. However,
no areas were identified in the zonal plans for granting Premium
FAR. She also contended that zonal regulations are nearly 20 years
old and do not form reliable or accurate foundation for determining
the grant of additional FAR. She submitted that the impugned
notification and the 2026 notification do not contemplate any
mechanism for the provision of services such as public health,
sanitation, conservancy, solid waste management and others by the
respondents in the areas where Premium FAR is proposed to be
granted. She submitted that such an attitude demonstrates a short-
sighted and ill-considered proposal for development, which ignores
- 63 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
the network of public infrastructure in the city. She also submitted
that the respondent State has failed to formulate and pass a revised
master plan and neglected its statutory duties by introducing the
Premium FAR scheme. She also submitted that the impugned
Premium FAR scheme would indirectly accomplish the same object
of the Akrama Sakrama scheme, which legitimises any construction
in the State of Karnataka on payment of charges.
67. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State
countered the aforesaid submissions. He contended that Premium
FAR did not create any new or additional development potential
beyond what was permissible under the pre-existing regulatory
framework. He submitted that additional FAR up to 0.6 times of the
base FAR was permissible in Bengaluru since 2004 under Section
14-B of the KTCP Act and Rule 4(4) of the KTCP (Benefit of
Development Rights) Rules, 2016. He contended that Section 18B
of the KTCP Act was in furtherance of statutory object of KTCP Act
and for the purpose of providing for additional vertical development
by granting Premium FAR over and above the permissible FAR. He
also countered the submission that Section 18-B of KTCP Act
violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the
- 64 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
grant of Premium FAR was neither unconditional nor unregulated,
as other norms for construction, including obtaining a sanctioned
building plan conforming to the regulations for setback and height
restrictions for buildings, as well as parking regulations, are
applicable. He submitted that the Premium FAR scheme merely
increases the FAR without altering any other regulatory norms. He
submitted that FAR norms for Bengaluru were among the lowest for
any metropolitan city. Therefore, the only way to accommodate
additional space was to develop vertically. He contended that there
is sufficient headroom to increase the FAR, which would permit
vertical development. He also countered the submission that
Section 18-B suffers from any excessive delegation, or that it does
not identify the authority to grant Premium FAR. He submitted that
Section 18-B of the KTCP Act requires an application for Premium
FAR to be made to the Planning Authority under Section 15 of the
KTCP Act, which in turn requires the grant of permission by the
Planning Authority. He submits that some functions of the planning
authority are delegated to the local authority under Section 18-B of
the KTCP Act. He submitted that the 2026 notifications designated
the City Corporations within the Greater Bengaluru Development as
the concerned planning authority.
- 65 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
68. The learned Advocate General also referred to various
provisions of the KTCP Act and the Rules in support of his
contentions. He submitted that the Premium FAR scheme was in
conformity with the KTCP Act and was introduced with the objective
of addressing the city's propensity and need for vertical
development. He further submitted that the amended framework
under the 2026 notification fully accommodates the TDR and
provides the structured coexistence of TDR as well as Premium
FAR. He also submitted that roads with a width of 9 to 12 metres
constitute the bulk of the road network, and Premium FAR is not
available for development abutting such roads. He also furnished a
tabular statement of the data of roads in Bengaluru, which is set out
below:
Sl. No. Width of Road (m) Number of Roads
1 9 to 12 85,000
2 12 to 15 7,742
3 15 to 18 1,105
4 18 to 24 4,961
5 24 to 30 5,052
6 30 to 45 1,245
7 Above 45 3,135
TOTAL 1,08,233
69. He contended that the increase in the Premium FAR is
intended to address the needs of the ever-increasing population and
the scarcity of land. He contended that there is no violation of Article
- 66 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
243-ZE of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the role of the
BMPC was entirely distinct. He submitted that its primary role was
the preparation of a draft development plan, which provides a
guiding and recommendatory framework that broadly addresses the
matters of coordinated spatial planning, sharing of water and natural
resources, integrated infrastructure development, and
environmental conservation. He submitted that this is fundamentally
different from the scope of a statutory master plan approved under
the KTCP Act. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court
9
in Bondu Ramaswamy vs. Bangalore Development Authority in
support of his contention. He submitted that Section 13E of the
KTCP Act does not provide for any mandatory consultation with the
Bengaluru Metropolitan Planning Committee.
70. Lastly, he also countered the submission that Section 38-D of
the BDA Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
He submitted that Section 38-D of the BDA Act did not reward any
illegal occupation, but, enabled the BDA to allot land to specific
categories of persons who were in settled possession of the land in
question, upon payment of market charges and a regularisation fee.
9
(2010) 7 SCC 129
- 67 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
VII. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
71. It is apparent from the above that the writ petitioners assail
the Premium FAR scheme on several fronts. First, is the challenge
to the constitutional validity of the impugned notifications and
Section 18-B of the KTCP Act, which was inserted by way of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Fourth Amendment) Act,
2020 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 2020). The said Act received the
assent on 16.10.2020 and is deemed to have come into force with
effect from 31.07.2020 . The challenge is mounted on the ground
that:
(i) it offends Article 300A of the Constitution of India;
(ii) it is vitiated on account of excessive delegation;
(iii) it is manifestly arbitrary; and
(iv) it is inconsistent with Section 14-B of the KTCP
Act and the scheme of providing TDRs; and
(v) it has not been framed in accordance with the
prescribed procedure, including as contemplated
under Article 243ZE of the Constitution of India.
72. The writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.14959/2020 also assail
the constitutional validity of Section 38-D of the BDA Act, inter alia,
- 68 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary and offends Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
(A) The Premium FAR scheme does not violate Article 300A of
the Constitution
73. As noted above, the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1983/2025
seeks to impugn the Premium FAR scheme (as introduced by virtue
of Section 18-B of the KTCP Act read with Rule 37-E of the Rules)
and the 2026 notification on the ground that it violates Article 300A
of the Constitution of India. The submission is based on the premise
that the Premium FAR erodes the value of the TDRs granted to the
appellant. According to the appellant, this amounts to a deprivation
of his rights without authority of law.
74. We may note that the appellant owned land measuring 432.62
sq. mtrs. in Survey No.3/5, Venkateshpura Village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk, which was acquired by the BBMP for the
purpose of widening of Kogilu-Sampigehalli Main Road, in terms of
Notification No. UDD/154/BEM/RUPRA/2004 dated 18.01.2005. The
appellant opted to receive compensation in the form of TDRs
(notional land) under Section 14-B of the KTCP Act. The appellant
claims that the value of TDRs stands significantly eroded by the
- 69 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
introduction of the Premium FAR scheme. According to the
appellant, the erosion in the value that TDRs can fetch in the market
is due to the price of Premium FAR and the ease with which it can
be acquired and loaded. It is contended that the Premium FAR is
available at a value significantly lower than that of the TDRs.
Further, the attendant costs, including stamp duty payable on the
transfer of TDRs, make it more convenient to use Premium FAR
rather than TDR.
75. It is contended that whereas the cost of TDR is equivalent to
the value of the land acquired or surrendered by the land owner, the
premium charges for Premium FAR are significantly less than the
value of the land – they are a fraction of the value of the notional
land that would be required for developing built-up space by
acquiring the Premium FAR. The Premium Charges range from
28% to 50% of the said value. According to the appellant, this
places TDR owners in a significantly disadvantageous position.
76. We may note that Section 18-B of the KTCP Act provides that
the Premium Charges for Premium FAR shall not be less than 50%
of the estimated increase in the value of land and building on which
the Premium FAR are loaded. Thus, the Premium Charges are
- 70 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
determined at 50% of the notional land, which is commensurate with
the incremental portion of the Premium FAR. However, under
Section 14-B of the KTCP Act, read with Rule 4 of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules,
2016, the 'Notional Land' represented by the TDR is twice the area
of the land surrendered by the landowner or acquired for a public
purpose. Thus, in terms of value, the TDR represents broadly twice
the value of the land surrendered. If the value of the land
acquired/surrendered by the land owner against which TDRs are
granted is assumed to be of a similar value as the land on which
Premium FARs are loaded (or the recipient's plots where the TDR
are loaded), the price at which the owner/ developer of the
recipients plot acquires the incremental FAR would be similar to the
value of the required TDR. This is considering that the notional land
(TDR) is equivalent to twice the acquired land. However, there is no
dispute that the transfer of TDRs would attract stamp duty and other
attendant charges, including the costs incurred by the purchaser in
verifying the seller’s title to the TDRs.
77. Mr. V. Srinivasan Raghavan advanced extensive submissions
to persuade this court to accept that the pricing of Premium FAR
- 71 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
under the Premium FAR scheme is significantly lower than the value
of the TDRs. He also contended that the TDRs are granted in lieu of
compensation payable under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 [ 2013 Act ]. Thus, if the landowner had
opted to receive compensation under the 2013 Act, he would have
received not only the market value of the land acquired but also
additional compensation and solatium, which would broadly be twice
the value of the land acquired. It is thus argued that although the
quantum of TDR is twice the FAR available on surrendered/acquired
land, it would be erroneous to equate it to 50% of the incremental
value of the land, which is the minimum Premium Charge payable to
acquiring Premium FAR.
78. Although the learned AG contested the said contention, in our
view, it would be apposite to proceed on the basis that the Premium
Charges payable for Premium FAR would be lower than the cost of
the TDRs. This is apparent as the cost of the TDRs must be
assumed as equivalent to the compensation under the 2013 Act,
which the landowner could have opted to receive in lieu of accepting
TDRs.
- 72 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
79. Having stated the above, we are unable to accept that
providing additional FAR on payment of premium charges, which
may be relatively lower than the costs of acquiring TDR, would
offend Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The appellant’s
challenge on the same being violative of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India is founded on an erroneous assumption that
the Premium FAR scheme is expropriatory or amounts to depriving
the TDR holders of their property. 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.
80. Article 300A of the Constitution of India was inserted by the
th
Constitution (44 Amendment) Act 1978. The same is set out below:
300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property
save by authority of law .—No person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of law.
81. Prior to the insertion of Article 300A, the right not to be
deprived of property without authority of law as was contained in
clause (1) of Article 31 of the Constitution of India. Whilst by virtue
- 73 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
th
of the 44 amendment, clause (1) of Article 31 was transposed as
Article 300A, clause (2) was deleted. Article 19(1)(f), which
guaranteed the right to property as a fundamental right, was also
deleted.
82. Article 300A is a constitutional guarantee against deprivation
of property by an executive fiat or by any means other than by law.
The right to property cannot be curtailed or abridged by the State,
except by law. The expression ‘deprived’ connotes an action in the
nature of expropriation, which may be in the form of confiscation of
property, acquisition of property, or curtailment of rights, amongst
others. Absent any element of expropriation or deprivation, Article
300A of the Constitution of India is not attracted.
83. The policy decision of the executive that results in fluctuation
of the values of property (immovable or otherwise) would not render
the policy as violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Almost all decisions relating to fiscal and economic policy affect the
value of assets held by citizens. However, these decisions cannot
be challenged as violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of
India, as by their nature they do not expropriate or deprive the
citizens of their property.
- 74 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
84. The assumption that values of properties are preserved under
Article 300A of the Constitution is plainly erroneous. We may,
illustratively, refer to a policy in which the State decides to address
the scarcity of land for residential purposes in urban areas by
expanding city limits and permitting conversion of the land for
residential or commercial use. The State may also expand the
network of urban transport and roads to address the commuting
needs of residents of areas so included. This may reduce the
market value of residential land due to additional supply. If we
accept the contention that it is incumbent on the State to preserve
values of properties, such an action of the State would also be
vulnerable to a challenge on the ground of violating Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. Plainly, this is not the import of the
constitutional guarantee under Article 300A of the Constitution.
85. Article 300A of the Constitution of India does not apply if the
deprivation of property is by virtue of law. Thus, the challenge on the
ground that such deprivation of property falls foul of Article 300A of
the Constitution would have to rest on the basis that the law in
question is not valid. It is obvious that the validity of such a law
would necessarily have to be tested on the anvil of other provisions
- 75 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
of the Constitution. In the present case, the challenge to the
Premium FAR scheme is raised on the ground that it violates
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is also
inconsistent with the provisions of the KTCP Act. Thus, the validity
of the Premium FAR scheme would necessarily have to be tested
on the anvil of those grounds.
86. We are also not persuaded to accept that the Premium FAR
scheme renders TDRs “nugatory” as contended on behalf of the
appellant. The 2026 notification clearly indicates that Premium FAR
is not available for plots or developments abutting roads with a width
of 9 mtrs 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. Although it is argued
on behalf of the appellant and the petitioners that the same is
illusory, as there would hardly be any demand from takers of such
narrow roads, that contention is contested by the respondents. We
do not think it would be apposite for this Court to examine the
question as to what would be the demand for TDRs from plot
owners/developers for developing plots abutting such roads.
- 76 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
However, even if this Court were to consider the same, there is no
empirical data to support the contention that there is no demand for
TDRs, as claimed by the appellant and writ petitioners.
87. The learned Advocate General has produced a tabular
statement setting out the data regarding the roads, which was not
disputed. In terms of the said data, 85,000 out of 1,08,240 (wrongly
mentioned as 1,08,233 in the affidavit dated 23.02.2026 and written
submissions dated 22.04.2026 filed by the Government Advocate
for the respondents) fall within the category of roads having width of
greater than 9 metres and less than or equal to 12 metres. Given
the scarcity of land and demand for urban space in Bengaluru, it is
difficult to accept that there will be no demand for TDRs to raise
construction abutting these roads. Additionally, the maximum
Premium FAR that can be loaded on plots abutting roads wider than
12 metres is restricted to 0.4 times the base FAR. The balance of
0.2 times the base FAR can be utilised only by loading TDRs. Thus,
if any landowner or developer desires to use the additional FAR to
the maximum extent of 0.6 times the base FAR, he would
necessarily have to acquire TDRs for a minimum of 0.2 times the
base FAR. In the given circumstances, it is difficult to accept that a
- 77 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
reduction in demand for TDR, on account of the introduction of the
Premium FAR scheme, would completely denude it of its value. The
arguments advanced by the appellant and writ petitioners in this
regard are not based on any empirical data. At any rate, none has
been furnished to this Court.
88. In view of the above, we reject the contention that the
Premium FAR scheme violates Article 300A of the Constitution of
India for the reason that it may result in lowering the market value of
TDRs.
89. It is also important to note that no landowner whose land is
acquired or surrendered is compelled to accept TDRs as
compensation for such acquisition by the State. The landowner is
always free to accept fair compensation under the 2013 Act. The
learned Advocate General, during the arguments at the stage of
interim orders and during the course of final arguments, made an
unequivocal statement that it is open for the appellant to accept the
compensation under the 2013 Act even at this stage, as the TDR
certificates have not been issued. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant rejected this offer outrightly.
- 78 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
90. We are unable to accept that, in the given circumstances, the
appellant could raise any legitimate grievance that the introduction
of Premium FAR is expropriatory and deprives the appellant of his
property without the authority of law.
(B) Section 18-B of the KTCP Act does not suffer from the vice
of Excessive Delegation
91. Section 18-B of the KTCP Act is assailed on the ground that it
seeks to delegate essential legislative function and, therefore, is
invalid. First, this contention is premised on the basis that although
Section 18-B of the KTCP Act provides for grant of Premium FAR, it
neither indicates a structure nor the manner or the extent to which
such Premium FARs could be granted. Second, that it does not
identify the authority which will issue Premium FAR.
92. Dr. Harish Narasappa contended that, read in isolation,
Section 18-B of the KTCP Act is inchoate and was incapable of
being implemented without reference to Rule 37-E of the Rules and
the 2026 notifications. He also referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Sidhartha Sarawgi v. Board of Trustees for
10
Port of Kolkata and on the strength of the said decision
10
(2014) 16 SCC 248
- 79 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
contended that legislation cannot delegate essential legislative
function. He submitted that Section 18-B does not identify any area,
planning considerations, the necessary conditions that must be
satisfied for acquiring Premium FAR, or the quantum of additional
FAR that can be granted. It delegates the task of making legislation
on these essential aspects to the concerned authorities.
93. There is no cavil with the proposition that essential legislative
functions cannot be delegated. However, if the legislative policy is
clearly spelt out by the plenary enactment, the manner in which the
policy can be given effect to, can be delegated.
11
94. In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912 , Mukherjea J. explained the
essential legislative function, which could not be delegated, in the
following words:
“The essential legislative function consists in the
determination or choosing of the legislative policy and
of formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of
conduct. It is open to the legislature to formulate the
policy as broadly and with as little or as much details
as it thinks proper and it may delegate the rest of the
legislative work to a subordinate authority who will
work out the details within the framework of that
policy."
11
(1951) SCR 747
- 80 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
12
95. In Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh , the
Supreme Court considered the question of excessive delegation in
the context of the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary
Powers) Act, 1946. Section 3 of the said Act delegated the powers
to make Rules to the Central Government. Sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the said Act empowered the Central Government to
make an order for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply
and distribution, trade and commerce, in any essential commodity.
Sub-section (2) Section 3 of the said Act provided that without
prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred under Sub-
section (1), the order inter alia, may provide for licences or permits
or otherwise regulate the production or manufacture or transport,
distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of the
essential commodity. Section 6 of the Act provided that any order
made under Section 3 by the Central Government would have an
effect notwithstanding any other law other than the said Act. In
exercise of the said powers, the Central Government issued the
Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. In that context,
the question arose whether this power, to override other
enactments, could be delegated.
12
(1955) 1 SCR 380
- 81 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
96. It was argued that a power which abrogates or repeals any
other enactment is an essential legislative function and thus could
not be delegated. Mahajan, C.J., speaking for the majority, rejected
the said contention and held that "an order passed under Section 3
of the enactment in question did not repeal or abrogate any law.
However, during the continuance of the order made under Section
3, the other laws “do not operate in that field for the time being". The
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the provision
providing that delegated legislation may temporarily suspend other
enactments. The court rejected the argument that Section 3 of the
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, suffered from the
vice of excessive delegation of legislative powers. The court held
that the power conferred was not unbridled or unguided, as the Act
in question set down the legislative principle for enacting the order
for the purpose of "maintaining or increasing supplies of any
essential commodity" and "securing their equitable distribution and
availability at fair prices". The court held that the said principles
provided sufficient guidance to the Central Government to exercise
its powers under Section 3 of the Act.
- 82 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
97. We also consider it apposite to refer to the decision in the
case of Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and
13
Goa . The case concerned a challenge to the State Bar Council's
powers to control a person’s entry into and progress in the
profession. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Advocate's Act,
1961 contains provisions regarding persons who may be admitted
as advocates on a State Roll. The said section also refers to
conditions that may be specified by the Rules made by the State
Bar Councils under Chapter III, which deals with the "Admission and
Enrolment of Advocates". Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act
empowers the State Bar Councils to make rules for carrying out the
purposes of the Act, which may also provide for conditions subject
to which a person may be admitted as an Advocate. In this context,
the Supreme court observed as under:
"Even though the aforesaid rule-making power is
couched in wide terms the said power entrusted to
the State Bar Council cannot be said to be unfettered
or unhedged. The said rule-making power draws its
sustenance from the guidelines laid down by the Act
itself which entrusts the duty to the State Bar Council
concerned to regulate entry to the legal profession
which has the aforesaid well established connotations
and attributes. The Bar Councils concerned are
entrusted by the legislature itself with the aforesaid
rule-making power enabling them to determine the
13
(1996) 3 SCC 342
- 83 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
requirements of the State Courts concerned where
the new entrants have to practise and to lay down
appropriate conditions regulating such entries. As the
power to make rules is entrusted by legislature to the
chosen representatives of legal practitioners
themselves who would be alive to the requirements of
the State concerned where the Bar Council functions
and the needs of the litigating public residing in the
State in the light of the set-up of courts in the States
concerned, it cannot be said that the power is in any
way unfettered or uncanalised so as to amount to
total effacement of legislative control. Sufficient
guidelines are laid down by the legislature itself while
conferring such powers on the State Bar Councils.
The guidelines flow from the nature of the profession
to which admissions are to be given, the selection of
the chosen representatives of the profession to be
the recipients of such power and the requirements of
the statute itself laying down the conditions for
regulating the professional conduct of advocates as
discernible from various provisions of the Act and the
rules framed by a Central Bar Council itself for the
guidance of all the State Bar Councils functioning in
the country which are entrusted with the task of
regulating the conduct of legal profession throughout
the country under the supervision and guidance of
Central Bar Council. The entire edifice of the Act in
this connection has to be kept in view for finding out
the relevant guidelines for enlightening the path of
State Bar Councils entrusted with the task of framing
rules regulating entries of new aspirants who are to
be permitted to enter the fold of legal profession."
98. As is apparent from the above, the Supreme Court highlighted
an important principle for determining whether the powers conferred
by delegated legislation are uncanalised or unguided. For
ascertaining the same, it is necessary to look at the provisions of the
- 84 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
plenary enactment as a whole–and not any specific provision–to
ascertain whether the same provides sufficient guidance.
99. It is also well settled that conferring an unguided discretion to
frame subordinate legislation would amount to abrogation of the
essential legislative function, which is impermissible. However, it is
also recognised that delegating certain legislative functions is a
facet of an effective exercise of legislative powers. This is rooted in
the principle that the legislature has all the necessary powers to
exercise its legislative functions effectively, which would also entail
the power to delegate certain legislative functions. It is recognised
that delegated legislation has its own advantages, and in view of the
complexity of problems, it is expedient to delegate certain functions.
The law is now settled that so long as the plenary enactment
provides sufficient guidance to make subordinate legislation and
exercises its control over such delegated legislation, the same
cannot be struck down as excessive.
100. We do not find any merit in the contention that Section 18B of
the KTCP Act must be struck down as it does not provide any
guidance as to the extent or the manner in which Premium FAR can
be conferred. It is not necessary for a plenary legislation to specify
- 85 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
each parameter. As stated above, if the plenary enactment sets out
the legislative policy and provides sufficient guidance for the
delegated legislation, the same will not be vulnerable to a challenge
on the ground of excessive delegation.
101. We may refer to the decision in the case of Western India
Theatres Limited v. Municipal Corporation of the City of
14
Poona . In the said case, the provision of the Bombay District
Municipal Act, 1901, which conferred powers on the Municipality to
levy "any other tax to the nature and object of which the approval of
the Governor-in-council shall have been obtained prior to the
selection contemplated in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 60",
was assailed. It was argued that the essential legislative function to
determine the nature of the tax to be imposed was delegated to the
municipality, and this was beyond the permissible limits of delegated
legislation. The Supreme Court rejected the said contention. The
Court observed that under Section 59 of the Bombay District
Municipal Act, 1901, the municipality was authorised to impose tax
for the purposes of the Act. The same was found to be sufficient
14
[(1959) Supplementary 2 SCR 71]
- 86 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
guidance. The Court noted that the challenged provision also laid
down the procedure that the municipality had to follow.
102. We must also be guided by the following observations made
by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the
15
Union Territory of Delhi :
“so long as the legislature indicated in the
operative provisions of the staute with certainty,
the policy and purpose of the enactment, the mere
fact that the legislation was skeletal or that very
detail of the application of law to a particular case,
was not laid down in the enactment itself or the
fact that a discretion was left to those entrusted
with administering the law, afforded no basis either
for the contention that there had been an
excessive delegation of legislative power so as to
amount to an abdication of its functions, or that the
discretion vested was uncanalised and unguided
so as to amount to a carte blanche to discriminate”
103. In Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of Madhya
16
Pradesh , the Supreme Court rejected the contention that
delegating the power to fix rates of tax which could be charged in
respect of different classes of goods could not be struck down as
excessive. The court held that fixing the rates is not an essential
15
1962) 2 SCR 125
16
[(1959) SCR 427
- 87 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
legislative function that cannot be delegated. We may refer to the
following extract of the said decision:
“Now the authorities are clear that it is not
unconstitutional for the legislature to leave it to the
executive to determine details relating to the
working of taxation laws, such as the selection of
persons on whom the tax is to be laid, the rates at
which it is to be charged in respect of different
classes of goods, and the like.”
104. However, in a later decision in Municipal Corporation of
17
Delhi v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills , the Supreme Court
observed that the observations in Pandit Banarsi Das' case ( supra )
seem to be too “broadly stated”. However, the court accepted that
rates of taxation could also be "delegated to a subordinate authority
with proper guidance and subject to safeguards and limitations in
that behalf".
105. In Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration
18
Committee, Patna & Anr. , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court upheld that an executive authority could be empowered to
modify the existing or future laws, but not any essential features.
17
(1968) 3 SCR 251
18
(1955) 1 SCR 290
- 88 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
106. We may also refer to the decision in the case of Corporation
19
of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema . In the said case, one of the
questions considered by the Supreme Court was a challenge to
Section 548 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The said section
empowered the Municipal Corporation to charge a licence fee at
such rate as may be fixed from time to time by the Corporation.
Whilst the respondents argued that the levy was a fee and therefore
should be commensurate with the services rendered, the Municipal
Corporation contended that the levy was a tax and the element of
quid pro quo was not essential. In view of the Corporation's
contention, the Supreme Court also considered the challenge
whether delegating the power to levy tax at such rates as may be
determined, suffers from the vice of excessive delegation–that is,
delegating essential legislative functions–and observed as under:
"26. No doubt when the power to fix rates of taxes
is left to another body, the legislature must provide
guidance for such fixation. The question then is,
was such guidance provided in the Act? We first
wish to observe that the validity of the guidance
cannot be tested by a rigid uniform rule; that must
depend on the object of the Act giving power to fix
the rate. It is said that the delegation of power to
fix rates of taxes authorised for meeting the needs
of the delegate to be valid, must provide the
maximum rate that can be fixed, or lay down rules
indicating that maximum. We are unable to see
19
( 1964) SCC OnLine SC 65
- 89 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
how the specification of the maximum rate
supplies any guidance as to how the amount of
the tax which no doubt has to be below the
maximum, is to be fixed. Provision for such
maximum only sets out a limit of the rate to be
imposed and a limit is only a limit and not a
guidance.
27. It seems to us that there are various decisions
of this Court which support the proposition that for
a statutory provision for raising revenue for the
purposes of the delegates, as the section now
under consideration is, the needs of the taxing
body for carrying out its functions under the statute
for which alone the taxing power was conferred on
it, may afford sufficient guidance to make the
power to fix the rate of tax valid. We proceed now
to refer to these cases.
*
31. The portion in the judgment in Bhana Mal
Gulzari Mal [(1960) 2 SCR 627] case quoted in the
preceding paragraph will show that the validity of
the guidance required to make delegation of
power good cannot be judged by a stereo-typed
rule. With respect, we entirely agree with this view.
The guidance furnished must be held to be good if
it leads to the achievement of the object of the
statute which delegated the power. The validity of
the power to fix rates of taxes delegated to the
Corporation by Section 548 of the Act must be
judged by the same standard. Now there is no
dispute that all taxes, including the one under this
section, can be collected and used by the
Corporation only for discharging its functions
under the Act. The Corporation, subject to certain
controls with which we are not concerned, is an
autonomous body. It has to perform various
statutory functions. It is often given power to
decide when and in what manner the functions are
to be performed. For all this it needs money and it
needs will vary from time to time with the
prevailing exigencies. Its power to collect tax,
however, is necessarily limited by the expenses
required to discharge those functions. It has,
therefore, where rates have not been specified in
- 90 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
the statute, to fix such rates as may be necessary
to meet its needs. That, we think, would be
sufficient guidance to make the exercise of its
power to fix the rates valid. The case is as if the
statute had required the Corporation to perform
duties A, B & C and given power to levy taxes to
meet the costs to be incurred for the discharge of
these duties and then said that, “provided,
however, that the rates of the taxes shall be such
as would bring into the Corporation's hands the
amount necessary to defray the costs of
discharging the duties”. We should suppose, this
would have been a valid guidance. We think the
Act in the present case impliedly provides the
same guidance : see Section 127(3) & (4). It would
be impracticable to insist on a more rigid
guidance. In the case of a self-governing body
with taxing powers, a large amount of flexibility in
the guidance to be provided for the exercise of
that power must exist. It is hardly necessary to
point out that, as in the cases under Essential
Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, so in the
case of a big municipality like that of Calcutta, its
needs would depend on various and changing
circumstances. There are epidemics, influx of
refugees, labour strikes, new amenities to be
provided for, such as hospitals, schools—and
various other such things may be mentioned,—
which make it necessary for a colossal municipal
Corporation like that of Calcutta to have a large
amount of flexibility in its taxing powers. These
considerations lead us to the view that Section
548 is valid legislation. There is sufficient guidance
in the Act as to how the rate of the levy is to be
fixed."
- 91 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
107. Lastly, in this regard, we may refer to the decision in the case
20
of Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab wherein the
Supreme Court observed as under:
“The Constitution confers a power and imposes a
duty on the legislature to make laws. The essential
legislative function is the determination of the
legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of
conduct. Obviously it cannot abdicate its functions
in favour of another. But in view of the multifarious
activities of a welfare State, it cannot presumably
work out all the details to suit the varying aspects
of a complex situation. It must necessarily
delegate the working out of details to the executive
or any other agency. But there is danger inherent
in such a process of delegation. An over-burdened
legislature or one controlled by a powerful
executive may unduly overstep the limits of
delegation. It may not lay down any policy at all; it
may declare its policy in vague and general terms;
it may not set down any standard for the guidance
of the executive; it may confer an arbitrary power
on the executive to change or modify the policy
laid down by it without reserving for itself any
control over subordinate legislation. This self
effacement of legislative power in favour of
another agency either in whole or in part is beyond
the permissible limits of delegation. It is for a court
to hold on a fair, generous and liberal construction
of an impugned statute whether the legislature
exceeded such limits. But the said liberal
construction should not be carried by the courts to
the extent of always trying to discover a dormant
or latent legislative policy to sustain an arbitrary
power conferred on executive authorities. It is the
duty of the court to strike down without any
hesitation any arbitrary power conferred on the
executive by the legislature.
20
AIR 1967 SC 1895
- 92 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
108. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, we may now proceed to
examine the provisions of Section 18-B of the KTCP Act. Section
18-B is set out below for ready reference:
18-B. Levy of premium charges for grant of
Premium Floor Area Ratio .- (1) The Authority
may grant permission for premium floor area ratio
in the areas identified for the purpose in the Zonal
regulations of the master plan.
(2) Where an application is made for grant of
permission for utilization of premium floor area
ratio for the development of a building under
section 15, the Authority may levy premium
charges, at such rate, not less than fifty percent of
the estimated increase in value of land and
building as may be prescribed by the Government
from time to time, for grant of premium floor area
ratio, not exceeding the limits as specified in the
zonal regulations of the master plan.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section,
“premium floor area ratio” means additional floor
area ratio permitted over and above the ordinary
permissible floor area ratio."
109. Sub-section (1) of Section 18-B of KTCP Act enables an
authority to grant permission for Premium FAR in areas identified for
the purpose in the Zonal regulations of the master plan. Plainly, this
is an enabling provision for providing Premium FAR in Zonal
Regulations. Section 9 of the KTCP Act provides for the preparation
of a master plan by a planning authority, and Section 12 provides for
its contents. This includes zoning of land use for residential,
- 93 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and
other purposes together with the zoning regulations. There is no
dispute that parameters such as the building height, setbacks, and
FAR must be specified in the zonal regulations. Viewed in this
perspective, Section 18-B of the KTCP Act merely permits the grant
of additional FAR in the areas identified in the Zonal Regulations.
110. Sub-section (2) of Section 18B authorises the levy of
Premium Charges for the grant of Premium FAR. It also provides
that such charges shall not be less than 50% of the estimated
increase in the value of land and buildings as may be prescribed for
the grant of Premium FAR, not exceeding the limits as may be
prescribed in the Zonal Regulations. It is worth noting that the KTCP
Act does not incorporate the building by-laws or other development
parameters. However, it enables the framing of the master plan,
including the Zonal Regulations. This is in conformity with the object
of the KTCP Act, which is to provide for the regulation of land use,
planned development and for the execution of town planning
schemes. Section 18-B of the KTCP Act is an enabling provision
which enables the concerned authorities to provide for additional
FAR, subject to the payment of a premium. We are unable to accept
- 94 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
that the said power is unbridled or unguided, as additional FAR is
necessarily confined to the limits of the Zoning regulations. Section
18-B also specifies that the minimum premium to be charged must
be 50% of the incremental value of the land and building.
111. Insofar as the contention that Section 18-B does not specify
which authority has to issue Premium FAR and, therefore, Section
18-B of the KTCP Act is liable to be set aside, is also unpersuasive.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, Section 18-
B of the KTCP Act also provides that an application for premium
FAR would be made in accordance with Section 15 of the KTCP
Act. Section 14(2) and 15(1) of the KTCP Act, read together,
contemplate that an application for permission for development is to
be made to, and processed by, the Planning Authority. The Planning
Authority is defined under Section 2(7) of the KTCP Act as under:
" (7) ‘Planning Authority ’ means,—
(a) in the case of— (i) the local planning area
comprising the City of Bangalore, the Bangalore
Development Authority, and;
(ia) the local planning area comprising any “urban
area” defined in the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, 1987, the Urban
Development Authority of such urban area;
- 95 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(ib) the heritage area as defined in the Hampi
World Heritage Area Management Authority Act,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as heritage area) the
Hampi World Heritage Area Management
Authority constituted, under that Act
(ii) any other local planning area in respect of
which the State Government may deem it
expedient to constitute a separate Planning
Authority, the Planning Authority constituted under
this Act.
(b) in the case of any local planning area in
respect of which a Planning Authority is not
constituted under this Act, the Town Improvement
Board constituted under any law for the time being
in force having jurisdiction over such local
planning area, and where there is no such Town
Improvement Board, the local authority having
jurisdiction over such local planning area"
112. The impugned notifications also provide that the corporations
shall be the planning authorities for the sanction of plans within their
respective jurisdiction.
113. When we view the provisions of Section 18B in the light of the
principles as enunciated above, we are unable to accept that the
said section suffers from the vice of excessively delegating
legislative functions merely because it does not identify any area or
person or the extent to which premium FAR may be granted.
- 96 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(C) The impugned notifications are not Inconsistent with or
violative of Section 18-B of the KTCP Act
114. The appellant contends that Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules and
the impugned notifications are inconsistent with Section 18-B of the
KTCP Act. It is contended that the said section provides that
Premium FAR would be available only in specified areas identified
for the purpose in the Zonal regulations of the master plan.
Therefore, it was necessary for the State to identify specified areas
in the Zonal regulations. It is pointed out that initially, impact zones
were identified under Regulation 3.4(vi) of Chapter 3 of the Zonal
Regulations, which was inserted with effect from 29.09.2018 by a
notification dated 29.09.2018. However, the said notification was
subsequently withdrawn by a notification dated 21.04.2026, which
was issued while the present petition was being heard. Regulation
3.4(vi) of the Regulations as inserted by virtue of the Zonal
Regulations of Bengaluru of the Revised Master Plan, 2015
(Amendment Regulations), 2018 is set out below:
“3.4 (vi) Impact Zone Premium FAR.-
(i) Means additional FAR permitted by
collecting additional fees within the Impact
Zone of MRTS/LRT/Peripheral Ring Road
projects, as specified in the Karnataka
Planning Authority Rules, 1965.
- 97 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(ii) Impact Zone as defined in the Karnataka
Planning Authority Rules, 1965 shall be
entitled to one unit of extra FAR as
premium F.A.R over and above the
permissible FAR for all permissible uses,
irrespective of the FAR applicable for the
respective uses in the respective tables,
subject to a minimum road width of 12 m.
{ Illustration : If the existing permissible
FAR of a plot is 2, then the Impact Zone
Premium FAR would be 1 and the total
permissible FAR would become 2+1 =3.}
(iii) Impact Zone Premium FAR shall be
granted under the regulations with an
additional fee as prescribed in the Planning
Authority Rules, 1965.
(iv) Only the area which falls within impact zone
shall be eligible for Impact Zone Premium
FAR, which may be utilized for the whole
extent irrespective of the area falling within
the impact zone.
(v) The Impact Zone Premium FAR shall not
be transferrable.
(vi) Impact Zone Premium FAR shall not be
claimed for plots, on which there is
construction which has violated the existing
Zoning Regulations or Building by-laws.
(vii) Procedure for the grant of Impact Zone
Premium FAR.
a) The applicant shall apply to Planning
Authority/Local Authority along with NOC
from Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation
Limited (BMRCL) to avail the Impact Zone
Premium FAR along Metro corridor and
Planning Authority/Local Authority would
- 98 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
scrutinize the proposal with reference to
the Zoning Regulations and also with
reference to the request for the Impact
Zone Premium FAR.
b) The applicant shall remit the Impact Zone
Premium FAR fee by way of demand draft
to the Planning Authority/Local Authority
and it shall be kept in a separate head of
account.
Planning Authority/Local Authority shall
c)
maintain independent registers detailing
the cases of grant of Impact Zone Premium
FAR in the format prescribed in Appendix
IX.
”
115. The petitioners contended that the said regulations were in
conformity with Section 18-B of the KTCP Act. However, the said
notification was not acted upon. The said amendment to the Zoning
regulations was withdrawn by a Notification dated 21.04.2026. The
said notification expressly records that by virtue of Rule 37-E of the
KPA Rules inserted by the Karnataka Planning Authority
(Amendment) Rules, 2021, the provisions of Regulation 3.4(vi)
stood superseded and were rendered inoperative with effect from
16.06.2021.
116. It is apparent that with the issuance of the aforesaid
notification, inconsistency between Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules and
the impugned notifications, if any stood resolved. The impugned
- 99 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
notifications do not specify any particular area or an impact zone.
However, they uniformly makes Premium FAR available on the plots
abutting roads with specified widths. Thus, the impugned Premium
FAR scheme is applicable to plots (areas) identified with reference
to the road width. The state contends that road width is a critical
factor in urban development and planning. It is also contended that
identifying areas with reference to the roads does not militate
against the provisions of Section 18-B of the KTCP Act.
117. The plain language of Section 18-B of the KTCP Act indicates
that the State was required to identify areas where Premium FAR
could be made available. The objective is to ensure that Premium
FAR can be applied to plots falling in areas that could sustain such
additional development. The impugned notifications do not specify
areas by locality names. However, they uniformly provide that
Premium FAR would be available on all plots abutting roads with a
specified width. Thus, the impugned notifications clearly identify the
areas as plots abutting roads of certain widths. Considering that
there is no ambiguity in identifying the plots on which the Premium
FAR is available, we find that the requirements of Section 18-B of
the KTCP Act are satisfied. As noted above, the width of a road is,
- 100 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
undisputedly, a relevant parameter for considering the extent of
development or construction that should be permitted. In this view,
we are unable to accept that the impugned notifications run contrary
to Section 18-B of the Act.
118. The second facet of the challenge is regarding the manner in
which Premium Charges are computed. It was contended that
Section 18-B of the KTCP Act expressly stipulates that the premium
charges will be “not less than 50% of the estimated increase in the
value of land and buildings”. According to the petitioners and the
appellant, the charges as fixed in the impugned notifications are
based on the guidance value of the additional notional sital area.
The proviso to paragraph No.5 of the impugned Notification also
provides that the Premium FAR charges per square metre of
additional area of building would not be less than 28% of the rate of
the guidance value (per square metre) of the building site on which
the construction is proposed.
119. We may now refer to the illustration as set out in the
impugned Notification, which explains the manner of calculating the
Premium charges. The same is set out below:
- 101 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Illustration
Particulars
Area of the site / Plot where Premium FAR is 10000 sq.m
sought
Latest Guidance Value of the Developed site at
Plot as per Notification u/s 45B of the Karnataka
Stamp Act 1957
Rs.5000 per sq.m
Coverage Allowed on each Floor (say) 50%
Area of Each Floor = Plot Area x 50% 5000 sq.m
Allowable F.A.R 2.5
Allowable total F.A.R area (Permissible F.A.R) 10000x2.5=25000sq.m
Permissible number of floors (25000/5000) 5
No. Of Extra Floors desired by the developer (for 2
illustration purpose)
Additional F.A.R Area to be constructed through 10000 sq.m
Premium F.A.R
Additional F.A.R Area required as Premium 10000 sq.m/2.5=4000
F.A.R (Notional Area) sq.m
Premium FAR as ratio of the otherwise allowed 0.4
FAR = 10000/25000 = 40%
Premium FAR as % age of permissible FAR (this
is within allowed limits of Premium FAR as per
table in Regulation 2 above)
40%
Value of the Notional Land for additional 10000
sq.m to be constructed using Premium FAR =
4000 x GV of Developed Land
4000 sq.m x 5000 =
Rs.2,00,00,000/-
Premium F.A.R charges = 50% of GV of the 50% of 2,00,00,000/-
Notional Land (4000 sq.m)
Rs.1,00,00,000’-
Per square metre rate of the additional 10000
sq.m built up area = Premium FAR charges @
50% divided by 10000
1,00,00,000/-/10,000 =
Rs.1000 per sq.m
- 102 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Lower Floor Cap for per sq.metre cost of
additional 10000 sq.m @ 28% of the GV Rate of
the Notional Land
28% of 5000 =
Rs.1400 per sq.m
Final Price for additional built up area of 10000 Rs.1400 per sq.m x
sq.m @ Rs.1400 per sq.m 10000 sq.m
Rs.1,40,00,000/-
120. The aforesaid illustration clearly indicates that the increase in
the value of land and building is determined on the basis of the
guidance value of the additional land (referred to as notional land)
which would be required for raising the construction to the extent of
a floor area equivalent to the floor area constructed by use of
Premium FAR. The illustration indicates that the Premium FAR
constitutes 40% of the otherwise permissible FAR on a plot of
10,000 sq. metres, which is assumed as 2.5. This translates to a
notional land area of 4,000 sq. metres (40% of 10,000). Thus, 4000
sq metres of additional land would be required to construct 10000
sq metres at an FAR of 2.5. The illustration assumes the guidance
value of the said land is equal to ` 2 crore (at ` 5,000/- per sq.
metre). Thus, 50% of the notional land value would amount to ` 1
crore, which translates to ` 1,000/- per sq. mtr of additional area that
can be built using Premium FAR. However, the minimum charges
are required to be not below 28% of the guidance value of the
- 103 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
`
additional area. Thus, 1,400/- is the Premium Charges per sq
metre.
121. The petitioners/appellant argue that the said amount does not
take into account the value of the construction raised. The same is
inconsistent with Section 18-B of the KTCP Act, which stipulates
50% of the incremental value of both the land and building.
122. We find no merit in the said contention. It is well accepted that
the value of constructed area, apart from the financial costs, is the
cost of construction and the market value of land. It is necessary to
bear in mind that a building is a depreciable asset, its value
decreases over a period of time. The value of a building is not more
than the cost of construction incurred or its replacement value. The
replacement value is the value that would be incurred to construct it.
Thus, for the purposes of determining the Premium FAR charges,
the building value is taken at cost and it is implicit that there would
be no increase in the building's value on account of any additional
construction. The Premium FAR must be acquired before
constructing any additional space. Thus, it is difficult to contemplate
that the value or the replacement value of construction would be any
different from the cost of actual construction. It is clear that the
- 104 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
incremental value of both the land and the building is captured in the
value of the notional land when the area of the notional land is
determined based on the incremental construction attributable to
Premium FAR.
123. In view of the above, we reject the contention that the
impugned notifications or Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules are contrary
to Section 18-B of the KTCP Act.
(D) Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules is not in conflict with the
impugned notifications
124. Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules is challenged on the ground that
it is ultra vires the KTCP Act. This is premised on the argument that
it is inconsistent with Section 18-B of the KTCP Act, as the Premium
Charges are confined to the value of the land, not the building. This
challenge is similar to the challenge to the impugned notifications as
discussed above. We find no merit in the said challenge for the
reasons as are set out above.
125. The impugned notifications are also challenged on the ground
that they do not identify “impact zones”. However, Rule 37-E of the
KPA Rules refers not only to the impact zone but to “any other area
specified for the purposes of Premium FAR in the Zonal regulations
- 105 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
of the approved master plan in force ”. The impugned notification
introduces Chapter 11 in the Zonal Regulations, whereby the areas
where premium FAR is applicable are specified as plots abutting
roads of the specified width. Thus, we find no merit in the contention
that the impugned notifications are in conflict with 37-E of the KPA
Rules.
126. Mr. V. Srinivas Raghavan also contended that Rule 37-E of
the KPA Rules disregards the object of the KTCP Act. We find no
merit in the said contention as well. The submissions advanced for
challenging Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules are also somewhat similar
to the challenge to Section 18-B of the KTCP Act. The petitioners
and the appellant argue that specifying the additional construction
that can be raised on a given plot on the basis of the width of the
road cannot be considered as having any nexus with the object of
the KTCP Act, which is to provide for a planned development.
However, we are not persuaded to accept the said contention. As
rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, determining the
permissible floor space is one of the key control features of a
planned development, and an additional FAR of 0.6 times the base
FAR is uniformly stipulated. Plainly, specifying the maximum
- 106 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
construction that can be raised bears a clear nexus with the object
of development and addressing the need for additional space.
(E) Section 18-B of the KTCP Act is not inconsistent with
Section 14-B of the KTCP Act and Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules
127. The appellant and the petitioners also argue that Rule 37-E of
the KPA Rules is inconsistent with Section 18B of the KTCP Act.
Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules also disregards Section 14-B of the
KTCP Act.
128. Section 14-B of the KTCP Act merely provides for the transfer
of development rights. Sub-section (13) of Section 14-B of the
KTCP Act provides that the TDR may also be transferred for the
development of any other area within the local planning area.
129. The challenge raised by the petitioners is in the context of
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning
(Benefit of Development Rights) Rules, 2016, which specifies that
the maximum additional floor area based on notional land (TDR)
can be utilised in the remaining portion of the original plot, but shall
not exceed 0.6 times the ordinarily permissible FAR. Sub-Rule (6)
provides that the notional land area (TDR) may be transferred to
another plot. However, the additional FAR of the receiving plot shall
- 107 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
not exceed 0.6 times of ordinarily permissible FAR. It is contended
that, since the additional FAR by utilising the TDR is 0.6 times the
base FAR, there is no scope to absorb any Premium FAR. Thus,
any construction raised using Premium FAR would necessarily
reduce the permissible additional FAR available through the
utilisation of TDRs.
130. We find no merit in the said contention. The 2026 notifications
provides that only TDRs can be used for development on plots
abutting roads of width equal to or greater than 9 metres but less
than 12 metres. In respect of plots abutting roads of width of 12
metres and above, the entire 0.6 times of the base FAR may be
utilised only by loading a minimum of Premium FARS and TDRs.
Since Rule 4(4) and Rule 4(6) of the TDR Rules only prescribes the
maximum additional FAR that may be availed by utilising the TDRs
(notional land), there is no inconsistency between the impugned
notifications – which enable a mix of TDRs and Premium FAR to be
loaded on plots abutting roads of width 12 metres and above – and
Section 14-B of the KTCP Act.
131. In view of the above, we reject the contention that there is any
inconsistency between Section 14-B of the KTCP Act and Section
- 108 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
18-B of the KTCP Act; Rule 37-E of the KPA Rules; the impugned
notifications; or the 2026 notifications. And that the said sections or
notification are liable to be set aside on that ground.
(F) The Premium FAR scheme does not violate Article 21 of the
Constitution
132. It was stoutly contended on behalf of the petitioners that the
impugned Premium FAR scheme violates Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The learned counsel referred to the decision in
21
Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa ,
22
Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India and Resident's Welfare
23
Association v. State (UT of Chandigarh) and the decision of the
24
Bombay High Court in Goa Foundation v. State of Goa in
support of their contention that unplanned growth violates Right to
Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
133. In the case of Friends Colony Development Committee
(supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with the regularisation
of construction carried out in violation of the building laws. The
21
(2004) 8 SCC 733
22
(2009) 15 SCC 705
23
(2023) 8 SCC 643
24
Judgment dated 13.03.2025 in PIL Writ Petition No.16/2023
- 109 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
relevant extract of the said decision, which was referred to by the
learned counsel for the parties, is set out below:
“ 22 . In all developed and developing countries
there is emphasis on planned development of
cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning,
planning and regulating building construction
activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is
a matter based on scientific research, study and
experience leading to rationalization of laws by
way of legislative enactments and rules and
regulations framed thereunder. Zoning and
planning do result in hardship to individual
property owners as their freedom to use their
property in the way they like, is subjected to
regulation and control. The private owners are to
some extent prevented from making the most
profitable use of their property. But for this reason
along the controlling regulations cannot be termed
as arbitrary or unreasonable. The private interest
stands subordinated to the public good. It can be
stated in a way that power to plan development of
city and to regulate the building activity therein
flows from the police power of the State. The
exercise of such governmental power is justified
on account of it being reasonably necessary for
the public health, safety, morals or general welfare
and ecological considerations; though an
unnecessary or unreasonable inter-meddling with
the private ownership of the property may not be
justified.”
134. In Shanti Sports Club ( supra ), the Supreme Court once
again emphasised the need for planned development of cities and
urban areas, and the rigorous enforcement of the master plan,
- 110 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
prepared after careful study of complex issues, scientific research,
and rationalisation of law.
135. In Residents' Welfare Association (supra) , the Supreme
Court took note of the adverse impact of haphazard urbanisation on
the environment. The court also referred to the cover story
published in Weekly India Today, “Bengaluru - How to Ruin India's
Best City” and observed that the said article depicts the sorry state
of affairs of Bengaluru, which was once considered to be one of
India's best cities. A “Garden City” that has been ruined on account
of haphazard urban development.
136. The decision in the case of Goa Foundation (supra) also
refers to the passage from the decision in Friends Colony
Development Committee (supra).
137. There is no cavil that haphazard development and a failure on
the part of the concerned planning authorities to address the need
to adequately plan urban spaces would adversely affect the
environment and denude the quality of life of persons living in the
urban areas. It is necessary for the authorities to rise to the
challenge of urbanization as it is estimated that a majority of the
country's population would be residing in urban areas by the year
- 111 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
2047. This would place civic infrastructure under immense pressure
and failure due to lack of competence in addressing the complex
issues of urban development would inevitably have adverse
consequences for the environment. As observed by the Supreme
Court in Residents Welfare Association (supra) as well as other
decisions, the adverse effect on the environment on account of
unplanned development is acutely evident.
138. Having stated above, we may also note that the scope of
judicial review is limited. We cannot undertake a merits review and
examine various other measures that could have been taken to
address the issue of additional urban space. We cannot supplant
our opinion on the question whether the increase in FAR would lead
to haphazard development, in place of the concerned authorities.
We must confine ourselves to examining the question whether the
impugned Premium FAR scheme violates any constitutional or
statutory right. Apart from the general arguments that the increase
in FAR and urbanisation would have an adverse effect on the quality
of life – which the State stoutly disputes – there is no material to
establish that an increase in FAR would deprive the residents of
their quality of life.
- 112 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
139. It is not disputed that there are several cities in the world,
where the permissible FAR is higher. The permissible FAR in
Bengaluru is amongst the lowest. According to the State, there is
enough headroom to increase FAR. The appellant and the
petitioners have been unable to establish that an increase in FAR
would be debilitating to the quality of life in the city.
140. We are unable to accept that the increase in FAR violates
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Akrama
(G) The Premium FAR scheme is not akin to the
Sakrama
scheme
141. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the Premium FAR Scheme seeks to reintroduce the
Akrama Sakrama scheme, which is the subject matter of a
challenge pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (C)
Nos.11077-11078/2017. It was contended that since the Supreme
Court has stayed the said scheme, reintroducing the same under
the guise of Premium FAR scheme is impermissible.
142. The Akrama Sakrama scheme, introduced under Section
76FF of the KTCP Act, is intended to regularise unauthorised
construction. The said section is reproduced below:
- 113 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
“ 76 FF. Regularisation of certain development
and change of land use. - (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, where any land has
been developed or change in land use is made in
contravention of section 14, 14A, section 15,
section 17 or the regulations or in contravention of
commencement certificate granted under section
15, the Planning Authority may regularise such
development and change of land use made prior
to 4 the date of commencement of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning and certain other
Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013, subject to such
rules as may be prescribed and on payment of the
prescribed amount, which may be different for
different purposes, but not exceeding the
estimated cost of the development.
Provided that the amount so prescribed
shall not be less than,-
(i) six percent of the market value,
determined in accordance with the Karnataka
Stamp Act, 1957 and rules made thereunder, of
the portion of the building built in violation of the
provisions referred tabove, if such violation of set
back norms and permissible floor area ratio does
not exceed twenty five percent;
(ii) eight percent of the market value,
determined in accordance with the Karnataka
Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder,
of the portion of the building built in violation of the
provisions referred to above, if such violation of
set back norms and permissible floor area ratio
exceeds twenty five percent but does not exceed
fifty percent:
Provided further that where the portion of
the building is built in violation of the provisions
referred to above is being used or meant for
nonresidential purpose and amount payable for
regularization of such portion shall be,-
(a) twenty percent of the market value,
determined in accordance with the Karnataka
- 114 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder,
of the portion of the building built in violation of the
provisions referred to above, if such violation of
set back norms and permissible floor area ratio
does not exceed twelve and a half percent;
(b) thirty five percent of the market value,
determined in accordance with the Karnataka
Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder,
of the portion of the building built in violation of the
provisions referred to above, if such violation of
set back norms and permissible floor area ratio
exceeds twelve and a half percent but does not
exceed twenty five percent.”; and] 3 (2) No such
development or change in land use referred to in
sub-section (1) shall be regularised, if it is made,-
(i) in the land affected by the alignments of any
road or of proposed inner ring road, National High
Ways, bypass road, outer ring road or mass rapid
transit system (rail) projects; (ii) on the land
belonging to the State Government or the Central
Government or appurtenant to any building
belonging to the State Government or the Central
Government; (iii) on the land belonging to an other
person over which the former has no title; (iv) on
the land belonging to any Board or Corporation
owned or controlled by the Central Government or
the State Government; (v) on the land belonging
to, or vested in, any Urban Development Authority
or Bangalore Development Authority; (vi) on the
land belonging to, or vested in, a local authority;
(vii) on the land abutting to storm water drains,
tank bed areas, river course or beds and canals or
below the high tension electric line; (viii) in land
reserved for parks, playgrounds, open space or for
providing civic amenities. (3) No development
being a special and hazardous industry or an
industry categorised as "RED" by the Karnataka
Pollution Control Board shall be regularised in a
non-conforming zone. Even in a conforming zone,
it shall be regularised only with the clearance from
the Karnataka Pollution Control Board.
- 115 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(4) No development shall be regularised
unless it conforms in respect of clearance from
high-tension lines and fire protection measures.
(5) No development shall be regularised in
the area covered by the Coastal Zone Regulations
of the Ministry Environment and Forest,
Government India.
(6) No development made in basement or
usage in contravention of bye law shall be
regularized.
(7) No development in violation of set back
norms exceeding twenty-five percent in case of
non-residential buildings and fifty percent in case
of residential buildings shall be regularized.
(8) No development shall be regularised
unless the violation in respect of change in land
use is first regularised.
(9) No development where the violation is in
excess of such prescribed limit but not exceeding
fifty percent of permissible floor area ratio in
respect of residential buildings and not exceeding
twenty five percent of permissible floor area ratio
in respect of non-residential buildings shall be
regularized and different maximum limit may be
prescribed in respect of different class of
development: Provided that where such
development resulting in violation is in excess of
prescribed limit, such development shall not be
regularized unless the development resulting in
violation is brought down within the regularisable
limit under this Act.
(10) Regularisation of violation in respect of
change of land use shall be made as far as may
be in accordance with section 14A;
(11) No development in respect of any
building having more than two floors shall be
regularised unless a certificate from a Structural
Engineer is produced regarding the structural
stability of such building;
- 116 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(12) In case of a owner of the building who
has made unauthorized construction in violation of
the norms or zonal regulation and do not apply for
regularization within the prescribed time, the
supply of water and electricity to the building shall
be liable to be disconnected with prior notice.
(13) Any person seeking regularization
under this section shall make application to the
prescribed Authority within 4 [such period as may
be prescribed
(14) No unauthorised construction or
development made in agricultural zone of
approved Master Plan or green belt area declared
under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 shall be
regularized.
(15) No person shall be liable to pay fine or
fee for regularization under any other law if he has
paid regularization fee under this Act for the same
violations.
(16) All payments made under sub-section
(1) shall be credited to a separate fund kept in the
concerned Local/Planning Authority called the
urban areas infrastructure Development fund
which shall be utilized in such manner, for the
development of infrastructure, civic amenities,
lighting, parks, drinking water, drainage system
and for any other infrastructure, as may be
prescribed.”
143. Section 76FF of the KTCP Act contains a non-obstante clause
and seeks to regularise land developed or a change in land use in
contravention of Section 14, 14A, Section 15 and 17 of the KTCP
Act or the Regulations made thereunder. The Akrama Sakrama
scheme essentially seeks to regularize unauthorised construction or
- 117 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
conversion of land use on payment of charges. This is neither the
object nor the import of the Premium FAR Scheme. Clearly, the
Premium FAR scheme does not seek to regularize unauthorised
construction; it changes the law uniformly, permitting additional
construction by availing Premium FAR to the extent provided on
payment of a charge. Under the Premium FAR scheme, additional
FAR is available not only for new construction on land but also for
additional construction on buildings constructed in accordance with
law. By virtue of the Premium FAR scheme, the owner of such
buildings can raise additional construction subject to seeking
necessary approvals and sanctions. Thus, the substratum of the
Premium FAR scheme is not to regularize any unauthorised
construction but to amend the extent of construction permissible
under the Zonal regulations. It is possible that an owner who has
raised construction in excess of that which is permissible may
regularize the same by acquiring the Premium FAR. However, that
would be an exercise whereby the building raised by him is brought
in conformity with the applicable regulations. The same does not
amount to regularising illegal construction, which would continue to
stand contrary to other regulations. Merely because a construction
which is in excess of the permissible limit stands regularised by
- 118 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
enhancement of the permissible limit, cannot be a ground to
assume that it is a scheme for regularising illegal construction. The
substrata of the Premium FAR Scheme and the Akrama Sakrama
Scheme are completely different, and the same cannot be conflated
merely because it may be permissible to regularise excess
construction under the Premium FAR Scheme.
144. In the aforesaid view, we find no merit in the contention that
the Premium FAR is akin to the Akrama Sakrama scheme and,
therefore, must be set aside on the ground that a challenge to the
Akrama Sakrama scheme is pending consideration in the Supreme
Court.
(H) Section 18-B and the Premium FAR scheme do not violate
Article 243ZE of the Constitution
145. It is contended on behalf of the appellant and the petitioners
that Section 18-B of the KTCP Act, whereby the Premium FAR
scheme was introduced, was without consultation with the BMPC. It
was argued that the same is mandatory under Article 243ZE of the
Constitution of India. Therefore the statutory provisions – Section
18B of the KTCP Act and Rule 37-E of KPA Rules together with the
- 119 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
impugned notifications, as subsequently modified by the 2026
Notifications – are liable to be set aside.
146. We may at this stage refer to Article 243ZE of the Constitution
of India. The same is reproduced below:
“ 243-ZE. Committee for Metropolitan
planning .—(1) There shall be constituted in every
Metropolitan area a Metropolitan Planning
Committee to prepare a draft development plan for
the Metropolitan area as a whole.
(2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, make
provision with respect to—
( a ) the composition of the Metropolitan Planning
Committees;
( b ) the manner in which the seats in such
Committees shall be filled:
Provided that not less than two-thirds of the
members of such Committee shall be elected by,
and from amongst, the elected members of the
Municipalities and Chairpersons of the Panchayats
in the Metropolitan area in proportion to the ratio
between the population of the Municipalities and of
the Panchayats in that area;
( c ) the representation in such Committees of the
Government of India and the Government of the
State and of such organisations and institutions as
may be deemed necessary for carrying out the
functions assigned to such Committees;
( d ) the functions relating to planning and
coordination for the Metropolitan area which may
be assigned to such Committees;
- 120 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
( e ) the manner in which the Chairpersons of such
Committees shall be chosen.
(3) Every Metropolitan Planning Committee shall,
in preparing the draft development plan,—
( a ) have regard to—
( i ) the plans prepared by the Municipalities and the
Panchayats in the Metropolitan area;
( ii ) matters of common interest between the
Municipalities and the Panchayats, including co-
ordinated spatial planning of the area, sharing of
water and other physical and natural resources,
the integrated development of infrastructure and
environmental conservation;
( iii ) the overall objectives and priorities set by the
Government of India and the Government of the
State;
( iv ) the extent and nature of investments likely to
be made in the Metropolitan area by agencies of
the Government of India and of the Government of
the State and other available resources whether
financial or otherwise;
( b ) consult such institutions and organisations as
the Governor may, by order, specify.
(4) The Chairperson of every Metropolitan
Planning Committee shall forward the
development plan, as recommended by such
Committee, to the Government of the State.”
147. Clause (1) of Article 243ZE of the Constitution of India
contemplates the constitution of a metropolitan planning committee
for preparing a draft development plan for the metropolitan area as
a whole. Clause (2) of the said Article enables the State legislature
to make laws for providing the composition of the planning
- 121 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
committees and the functions relating to planning and coordinating
for a metropolitan area, which may be assigned to such committees.
Clause (3) of Article 243ZE sets out the considerations that the
metropolitan committee must bear in mind when preparing a draft
development plan.
148. The State has framed the Bengaluru Metropolitan Planning
Committee Rules, 2013 [ BMPC Rules ], in exercise of the power
conferred under Section 503B read with Section 431 of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [ KMC Act ]. The BMPC
Rules provide for the constitution of the metropolitan planning
committee. Rule 9 of the BMPC Rules sets out functions of the
metropolitan planning committee, which include preparing a draft
development plan, the policy strategies, and priorities for a plan
period of twenty five (25) years, having regard to the considerations
as set out in clause (b) of Rule 9(2) of the BMPC Rules. Rule 10 of
the BMPC Rules provides that the metropolitan committee shall
formulate a draft development plan for the metropolitan area.
149. Rules 9 and 10 of the BMPC Rules are set out below:
“Rule 9. Functions of the Metropolitan Planning
Committee:
- 122 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(1) The committee shall perform such functions
relating to planning and co-ordination for the
Bangalore Metropolitan area as the Government
may, by notification, assign to it.
(2) The committee shall, in preparing the draft
development plan,-
(a) have regard to,-
(i) the plans prepared by the local Authorities
in the Metropolitan area;
(ii) matters of common interest between the
urban local authorities and the rural local
authorities, including co-ordinated spatial planning
of the area, sharing of water and other physical
natural resources, the integrated development of
infrastructure and environmental conservation;
(iii) the overall objectives and priorities set by
the Government of India and the State
Government;
(iv) the extent and nature of investments likely
to be made in the Metropolitan area by agencies
of the Government of India and of the State
Government and other available resources,
whether financial or otherwise;
(v) Consult such Institutions and Organizations
as the Government may specify by, Order.
(b) Also indicate policies, strategies and
priorities and major projects for a plan period of
twenty-five years having due regard to,-
(i) Physical and natural resource potentials
and their utilisation;
(ii) Natural Hazard prone areas;
(iii) Poverty alleviation and employment in both
formal and informal sectors;
(iv) Development of trade, commerce and
industry;
(v) Rural development;
(vi) Metropolitan area level transportation
system including mass transport;
(vii) Integrated infrastructure development
covering water, energy, sanitation, education,
health, recreation, communication and other
utilities facilities and Services;
(viii) Housing and Shelter development
programme;
- 123 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(ix) Population assignment and settlement
pattern of rural service centres as well as small,
medium and large urban centres and their
functional specialisation;
(x) Protection of environmentally and
ecologically sensitive areas and conservation of
heritage;
(xi) Generalised Land use;
(xii) Fiscal resource requirements and its
mobilisation including the extent and nature of
investments likely to be made in the metropolitan
area by agencies of the Government of India and
the State Government;
(xiii) Development of special areas, if any, such
as new towns, industrial townships, coastal areas,
etc;
(xiv) Phasing of the metropolitan area
perspective plan in periods of five years preferably
co-terminus with the state five year plan; and
(xv) Any other particulars and details as may be
considered necessary by the committee and as
may be directed by the Government.
Rule 10. Preparing draft Development plan:
Formulate metropolitan area draft development
plan within one year from the date of constitution
of the committee having regard or under
preparation under sub-rule (2) of rule 9 and
development goals, objectives and priorities for
the plan period as well as the fiscal resources and
central and state Government investment policies
and programmesincorporating,-
(1) all or any matters mentioned in sub-rule (2)
or rule 9;
(2) phasing of the metropolitan area
development plan into five annual plans by
sectoral programmes, projects and schemes
indicating physical targets and fiscal requirements;
and
(3) any other particulars and details as may be
considered necessary by the committee or as may
be directed by the Government.
(a) Prepare metropolitan area annual plan
within the framework of approved metropolitan
- 124 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
area development plan having regard to findings
of review of fiscal and physical performance of the
previous annual plan.
(b) Consult such institutions and organizations
as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, non-
Governmental organizations? including
professional bodies as, Institute of Town Planers
of India in the formulation of metropolitan area
plans as the Government may determine in this
behalf;
(c) Monitor the physical achievements of the
investments made by the various planning and
development authorities on annual basis and
submission of report thereon to the Government;
(d) Resolve conflicts arising out of overlapping
functions of planning and development authorities
and rural local bodies:
(e) Advise the local authorities on their up-
gradation of status and alteration of boundaries;
(f) Sort-out matters relating to sharing of water
and other physical and natural resources;
(g) Formulate policies and identify projects for
integrated development of metropolitan area level
infrastructure and facilitate their implementation
through public or private agencies;
(h) Serve as a nodal agency for disbursement
of such funds as the Government may determine,
to the local planning and development authorities;
and
(i) Perform any other incidental, supplemental
and consequential function or as prescribed or as
may be directed by the Government or as may be
necessary and required for the purposes of
carrying out its functions under these rules.
(4) The Member Secretary of the Committee
shall forward the draft development plan, as
recommended by the committee, to the
Government.
(5) The Committee shall have powers to
formulate guide lines for preparation of draft plan,
which shall be followed by the local authorities
while formulating their own plans.
(6) The accounts of all receipts and expenditure
of the Committee for the purpose of conduct of
meetings and discharge of their function shall be
- 125 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
governed by Financial Code and other related
Rules.”
150. It is evident from the above that the development plan is a
strategic plan that involves the sharing of natural resources,
developing trade and commerce, road development, etc. The
development plan, as contemplated under Rule 9 of the BMPC
Rules, is distinct from the building bye laws, which may provide for
the extent of setbacks, building heights, fire safety provisions, and
the extent of permissible construction for buildings catering to
different activities. Illustratively, buildings used for commercial
purposes, cinemas or hotels may require additional safety features,
such as an adequate number of exits in the event of an emergency,
such as a fire or an earthquake. The building by-laws applicable to
a residential house and a commercial building may differ materially.
These aspects are not addressed by the development plan as
contemplated under Rules 9 and 10 of the BMPC Rules.
151. It is also rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General
that Section 13-E of the KTCP Act does not provide for any
consultation with BMPC and the said provision is not called into
question. We may also refer to the decision in Bondu
- 126 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Ramaswamy (supra), which concerned a challenge to the
acquisition of lands for the formation of Arkavati Layout on the
outskirts of Bengaluru under the BDA Act. One of the contentions
advanced in the said petition related to the BDA’s power and
jurisdiction to prepare development plans for Bengaluru
Metropolitan Area. It was contended that pursuant to Article 243ZE
of the Constitution of India, the KMC Act had been amended by
insertion of Section 503B for providing the constitution of the BMPC
for preparing a draft development plan. Therefore, BDA could no
longer function as an authority for the development of the
metropolitan area. It was contended that it could not formulate any
development schemes for that purpose. In the aforesaid context,
the Supreme Court observed that the role of BMPC was materially
different from the role of BDA. The development schemes made by
the BDA related to buildings, engineering, and other operations,
including preparing layouts for drainage, water supply, electricity,
sanitary arrangements, open spaces, etc. However, the role of
BMPC is different. The court explained as follows:
“53. On the other hand, the development plan for
the metropolitan area as a whole, to be prepared
by the Metropolitan Planning Committee
constituted under the KMC Act involves making a
plan for overall development with reference to the
- 127 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
various functions enumerated in the Twelfth
Schedule, that is, plans for economic and social
justice, planning for economic and social
development, slum improvement and upgradation,
urban poverty alleviation, and providing several
urban amenities and facilities referred to in the
Twelfth Schedule. It would thus be seen that the
“development scheme” formulated for Bangalore
Metropolitan Area by BDA has nothing to do with a
“development plan” that has to be drawn by a
municipality or by the Metropolitan Planning
Committee.
54. The development plan to be drawn for a
metropolitan area, by a Metropolitan Planning
Committee should not be confused with a
development scheme to be drawn by a
Development Authority like BDA for a metropolitan
area.”
152. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that Section
18-B of the KTCP Act, the Rules made thereunder, and the Zonal
Regulations are liable to be set aside for want of consultation with
BMPC.
(I) Section 38-D of the BDA Act is valid and not manifestly
arbitrary
153. As noted above, the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.14959/2020 also seek to challenge the constitutional validity of
Section 38-D of the BDA Act.
154. Dr. Harish Narasappa canvassed that Section 38-D of the
BDA Act is contrary to Section 33A of the said Act and violates
- 128 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the said
section is also liable to be quashed on the ground of manifest
arbitrariness.
155. Section 38-D of the BDA Act was introduced by virtue of the
Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020 and
came into effect from 10.07.2020. The said Section is set out below:
“ 38-D. Allotment of Bangalore Development
Authority Land in favour of original owner or
purchaser or unauthorized occupant etc .—(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in
any other law or any development scheme made
under this Act, but without prejudice to Section 38- C
where the Authority after holding such enquiry as it
deems fit, is of the opinion that any land vested in, or
acquired by it cannot be used by it on account of
existing building thereon and it is not practicable to
include such land for the purpose of development
scheme or formation of sites, the Authority may,
subject to such rules after holding such enquiry as
may be prescribed, allot such land by sale in favour of
the original owner of the land or purchaser from its
original owner or any other person in unauthorized
occupation of the land for some reason or other who
has put up the building on the land and is in settled
possession of such land but does not include a tenant,
licencee or permissive user subject to the conditions
that,—
( i ) the building was in existence on such land and in
settled possession for not less than twelve years prior
to the date of commencement of the Bangalore
Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020;
( ii ) the allotee makes payment towards the allotment
of land at rates specified in the table below,—
- 129 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
Sl. Extent of Land with
No. building, other than corner
site
Amount to be levied and
collected
′ ′
1 Up to 20 X30 Ten percent of the
Guidance value
′ ′
2 More than 20 X30 and Twenty five percent of the
′ ′
upto 30 X40 Guidance value
′ ′
More than 30 X40 up to Forty percent of the
′ ′
40 X60 Guidance value
′ ′
More than 40 X60 and Fifty percent of the
′ ′
upto 50 X80 Guidance value and
penalty as may be
prescribed
Provided that, in respect of corner site with building
twice the rate specified above.
( iii ) total extent of land allotted to any person under
this sub-section shall not exceed 4000 square feet
and no other member of his family shall be entitled to
apply for or seek benefit of allotment of any other land
on any ground whatsoever;
( iv ) such original possessor of the land, purchaser
from its original possessor or the person who is in
unauthorized occupation of the land for one reason or
other and is in possession of such land with building
for more than twelve years prior to the date of
commencement of the Bangalore Development
Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020 seeking an
allotment makes an application to the Authority
containing such particulars, within such time and
along with such fee as may be prescribed and also
produces copy of any of the following supporting
documents to establish his settled possession and
construction of Building thereon like sale deed,
approved plan and permission for construction of
building, order for permanent supply of electricity,
sanction for connection of supply of water and
underground drainage for such building, property tax
receipt given or issued by the competent authority for
being paid the tax for such building or any such other
- 130 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
document to establish his settled possession and
construction of any building as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such land shall be allotted if,—
( a ) it is reserved for parks, playground, open space or
for providing civic amenities;
( b ) it affects alignment of any road or proposed ring
road, National Highways, by-pass road or mass rapid
transit system (rail) projects;
( c ) it is abutting to or upon a storm water drain, tank
bed area, river course or beds or below high tension
electric lines; and
( d ) the possession for more than twelve years is
litigious or interrupted possession by virtue of interim
order of court.
Explanation .—for the purpose of this section,—
( a ) “guidance value” means estimated market value
published under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
prevailing on the date of allotment;
( b ) “land” means site with building;
( c ) “original owner of the land” means a person who
was occupant of the land immediately before
publication of development scheme which contained
proposal for acquisition of such land; and
( d ) “settled possession” means in possession of land
with permanent building, without any litigious or
interrupted possession but does not include a tenant,
licencee or permissive user.
(2) The jurisdictional officer who is proved to have
failed to prevent unauthorised occupation or
construction that have taken place in his jurisdiction
from the date of commencement of the Bangalore
Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020 shall
be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed.
- 131 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
(3) The Bangalore Development Authority shall take
up an action plan to evict the unauthorized occupants
in Bangalore Development Authority Lands and who
are not eligible for allotment of site under this section
on the date of commencement of the Bangalore
Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020, within
two years from the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act.]”
156. Dr. Harish Narasappa contended that Section 38-D of the
BDA Act enables transfer of public lands to illegal occupants without
any basis and thus, is manifestly arbitrary. He contended that the
same places illegal occupants in a more advantageous position than
the law-abiding citizens. Additionally, he contended that, in the
absence of guidelines governing the exercise of statutory power,
such power would be subject to arbitrariness. He also relied on the
25
decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Khan Chand
in support of his contention.
157. We find no merit in the said contention. The assumption that
Section 38-D of the BDA Act does not provide any guiding principle
for the exercise of statutory powers ignores the plain language of
Section 38-D of the BDA Act. Section 38-D of the BDA Act enables
BDA to allot land to persons in certain circumstances where it is
found that (i) land vested or acquired cannot be used on account of
25
(1974) 1 SCC 549
- 132 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
an existing building; and (ii) it is not practicable to include such land
for the purposes of a development scheme or formation of sites. In
these circumstances, such land can be allotted or sold in favour of
(i)the original owner of the land, or (ii) the purchaser who had
acquired the same from the original owner, or (iii) any person in
unauthorised occupation who is in a settled possession of the land.
However, this would not include a tenant, licencee or a land loser.
Additionally, Section 38-D of the BDA Act also provides that the
building in existence on the land and the settled possession should
not be less than 12 years prior to the date of commencement of the
Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020; and second,
that the allottee makes payment towards the land at such rate as
specified. The tabular statement indicates that the only lands
measuring up to a maximum of 4000 sq. ft. could be allotted under
Section 38-D of the BDA Act.
158. The rationale for enacting Section 38-D of the BDA Act is
apparent from the contents of the said section. The guiding
principles for the exercise of power are also clearly set out in
Section 38-D of the BDA Act.
- 133 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
159. The learned counsel appearing for the BDA submitted that
from 1945 till 2010, the City Improvement Trust Board [ CITB ] and
the BDA had acquired a vast extent of land. It was noted that there
were unauthorised occupants on as many as 75000 sites spread
across various layouts formed by the CITB (Predecessor of BDA).
160. It was noticed that among all the landowners whose land was
acquired, several had raised construction. Further, the said
properties had also been the subject matter of the sale and
purchase transactions.
161. In the given facts, BDA found it difficult to evict all
unauthorised occupants or demolish the structures in which they
had been residing for more than 12 years. In some cases, such
persons would also be eligible for allotment of BDA sites for which
land was acquired. Thus, it did not stand to reason to dispossess
them and subsequently allot sites to them.
162. The learned counsel had also pointed out the orders and
observations made by the Court in various decisions. He also
emphasised those observations made by the court necessitated
enacting Section 38-D of the BDA Act. The relevant extracts of the
- 134 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
decisions as referred to by the learned counsel are reproduced
below:
“The relevant directions issued by the Hon ble Court-
1. This Hon'ble Court in the case of Junjamma and
Ors. V. BDA in ILR 2005
KAR 608 at paragraph no. 57 has observed as
hereunder:
"Para 57. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and
the findings recorded on the questions raised I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
2(a). All the petitioners who are the land owners who
are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in
so far as their respective lands are concerned, on the
ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green
belt area (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for
non - agricultural use; (d) garden land and nursery
lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational
institutions and factories; (f) who have not been served
with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt
about the inclusion of their land in the notification are
permitted to make appropriate application to the
authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and
producing documents to substantiate their contentions
within three months from the date of this order.
(C)In the event the Authority come to the conclusion
that those persons are similarly placed, then to denotify
their lands and exclude them from acquisition. "
2. In ILR 2006 KAR 318- The Commissioner BDA and
Ors. V State of Karnataka &Ors, this Hon'ble Court has
observed at Para 106 as hereunder:
"Para 106. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the
following:
ORDER
D) In so far as the land owners excluding the site
owners, are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(i) All the petitioners who are the land owners who are
seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so
- 135 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
far as their respective lands are concerned, on the
ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green
belt area; (b) they are totally built up; (c) properties
wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable,
educational and/or religious institutions (d) nursery
lands; (e) who have set-up factories (f) their lands are
similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but
not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make
appropriate application to the authorities seeking such
exclusion and exemption and producing documents to
substantiate their contentions within one month from
the date of this order.
It is made clear that the BDA shall consider such
request keeping in mind the status of the land as on
the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any
developments, improvements, constructions put up
subsequent to the preliminary notification and then
decide whether their cases are similar to that of the
land owners whose lands, are notified for acquisition,
notified and whose objections were upheld and no final
notification is issued."
The same is confirmed by The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in (2010) 7 SCC 129
Bondu Ramaswamy &Ors. V. BDA and Ors.
3. In WA no 1783/2014: BDA Vs R Shankaran this
Hon'ble Court has observed at Para 59 as hereunder
"Para 69. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
a) With regard to the land owners (excluding the site
owners):
i) All the land owners/writ petitioners who are seeking
for dropping of their lands from acquisition on the
ground that their lands are (1) nursery lands; (2)
situated within green belt; (3) totally built up; (4) that
the buildings are constructed by religious/charitable
educational institutions; (5) that similar adjoining lands
have been either left out from acquisition or de notified,
are permitted to make an application to the BDA
seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition by
producing all such material that they deem
fit/necessary in support of their applications within 3
- 136 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
months from today; (ii) The BDA shall consider each of
the said application/s keeping in mind the status of the
lands as on the date of the preliminary notification and
without taking into consideration any developments /
improvements / constructions made subsequent to the
preliminary notification;
4. In Writ Petition no. 44949/2003- Shamanna v State
of Karnataka, this Hon'ble Court has observed at Para
53 as hereunder:
"Para 53……
In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the findings
recorded on the points raised by the petitioners, this
Court proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER
The challenge to the acquisition in all these writ
petitions fails and it is accordingly rejected. The
acquisition proceedings are upheld, subject to the
following conditions:
B-(ii) : All the petitioners the who are
landowners/converted site owners (duly converted for
non-agricultural use of land, in accordance with law),
who are seeking dropping of the acquisition
proceedings in so far as their respective lands/sites are
concerned, on the ground that:
(a) their lands are situated within green belt area (b)
they are totally fruit up; (c) converted for non-
agricultural use; (4) garden and recognised nursery
lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational
institutions and factories; (1) who have not been served
with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt
about the inclusion of their land in the notification are
permitted to make appropriate application to the
authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and
producing documents to substantiate their contentions
within three months from the date of this order."
The same is confirmed by this Hon'ble Court in WA
No.1026/2006- Smt, Gangamma & Ors. v State of
Karnataka
5. In MA No(S). 1614-1616 Of 2019 In CA No(S).7661-
7663 Of 2018 Bangalore Development Authority & Anr.
v. State Of Karnataka &Ors., the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed as hereunder:
- 137 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
i) Vide order dated 03.12.2020-
"6. As stated above, the buildings constructed in the
layout with valid sanction/permission from the
competent authority/authority(ies) needs to be saved
from demolition. Therefore, it is important to identity the
lawful constructions made in the notified lands. For this
purpose, we appoint a Committee comprising of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V.
Chandrasekhar, former Judge of the Karnataka High
Court, as its Chairman, Mr. Jayakar Jerome, former
Commissioner of the BDA and Mr. S.T. Ramesh,
former Director General of Police, as its members.
The Committee is required to look into each of the
requests of the owners of the dwelling houses/buildings
for its regularisation. The Committee should also find
out whether the said dwelling houses buildings have
been constructed in accordance with the
sanction/permission of the competent authorities. The
constructions which have come up after the date of
pronouncement of the judgment
by this Court i.e. 3.8.2018, shall not be eligible for
regularisation. The Committee is permitted to devise its
own mechanism/procedure for holding the enquiry
including issuing notices in the local newspapers in this
regard. Final orders regarding dwelling
houses/buildings which will be protected, would be
passed after we receive the report of the Committee. "
b) Vide order dated 25.11.2022
"(5) Having perused the Third and Fourth Report, we
are satisfied that the buildings specified in Annexures
L0001 to L0026 require to be regularized in terms of
our order dated 03.12.2020. Therefore, we direct the
BDA to regularize the buildings specified in Annexures
L0001 to L0026 of the Fourth Report as corrected in
the addendum. Annexures L0001 to LO026 of the said
Report is made part and parcel of this order.
We direct the BDA not to acquire/take possession of
the lands/buildings specified in Annexures L0001 to
L0026. This is, however, subject to the conditions
indicated in our Order dated 03.12.2020."
- 138 -
WA No. 1983 of 2025
C/W WP No. 14959 of 2020
WP No. 2807 of 2026
163. As such, we find no merit in the contention that Section 38-D
of the BDA Act confers any unbridled or uncanalised power or is
manifestly arbitrary. The challenge to the validity of Section 38-D of
the BDA Act is, accordingly, rejected.
164. In view of the above, the appeal and the writ petitions are
dismissed.
165. Pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB/KPS/KMV