Validity of Premium Floor Area Ratio scheme upheld as constitutional and consistent with planning legislation.

The Karnataka State Government introduced a "Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR)" scheme via the insertion of Section 18-B into the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961, and Rule 37-E of the Karnataka Planning Authority (KPA) Rules.

This allowed developers to build additional floor area (up to 0.6 times the base FAR) upon payment of "Premium Charges" to the State.

The Appellants/Petitioners, including Transferable Development Rights (TDR) holders and civic groups, challenged the scheme’s validity.

WP 14959/2020 challenged Section 38-D of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act, which permits allotment of BDA land to certain unauthorized occupants in settled possession for over 12 years.

1. Whether the Premium FAR scheme violates Article 300A of the Constitution by devaluing Transferable Development Rights (TDR).

2. Whether Section 18-B of the KTCP Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power.

3. Whether the Premium FAR scheme is manifestly arbitrary or violates the right to planned development under Article 21.

4. Whether Section 38-D of the BDA Act is unconstitutional for legalizing unauthorized occupation.

Article 300A of the Constitution, which prohibits deprivation of property save by authority of law.

In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912 regarding the non-delegability of essential legislative functions.

Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab regarding the limits of delegated legislation.

Regulatory principles for urban density were drawn from Section 12 (Master Plan contents), Section 14-B (TDR), and Section 18-B (Premium FAR) of the KTCP Act.

Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA to distinguish between "development plans" under Article 243ZE and "development schemes" or Zonal Regulations.

Section 38-D of the BDA Act was assessed against Article 14 (Equality) and the principle of "manifest arbitrariness".

The Court held that Article 300A does not guarantee the preservation of property market value against policy changes; thus, the potential economic devaluation of TDRs due to the competing Premium FAR scheme does not constitute "deprivation".

TDR holders retain the option to claim monetary compensation under the 2013 Act if they find TDRs unviable.

Regarding excessive delegation, the Court found that Section 18-B provides sufficient guidance by capping Premium FAR within Zonal Regulations and setting a minimum charge of 50% of the incremental land value.

Procedurally, the use of road width as a criterion for FAR was deemed a valid scientific planning parameter.

The Article 21 challenge failed as the Petitioners provided no empirical evidence that a 0.6 FAR increase—already permitted via TDR—would ruin civic life.

Section 38-D of the BDA Act was upheld as a pragmatic legislative response to 75,000 long-term unauthorized occupations where eviction was impracticable, noting it excludes litigious or recent occupants.

It held that the Premium FAR scheme is not manifestly arbitrary and does not violate Articles 14, 21, or 300A of the Constitution.

The Court further confirmed that the scheme does not require prior consultation with the Metropolitan Planning Committee under Article 243ZE, as Zonal Regulations are distinct from the "Draft Development Plan".

All interim orders were vacated.