Overview
- A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed petitions challenging the 2026 Premium Floor Area Ratio (PFAR) notifications and upheld the scheme as constitutionally valid.
- The court held that fluctuations in property values caused by executive policy do not constitute 'deprivation of property' under Article 300A and therefore cannot invalidate PFAR.
- The bench rejected claims that PFAR breaches the right to life under Article 21 by degrading residents’ quality of life, saying petitioners provided no material proof of such harm.
- The ruling explained PFAR mechanics: developers can seek up to 0.6 times additional FAR, with a 0.4x cap via Premium FAR and a required 0.2x to come from Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), and Premium FAR is limited on plots abutting certain road widths.
- The court noted many Bengaluru roads fall in the 9–12 metre category where Premium FAR is unavailable, stressed that TDR holders retain protection because landowners may still opt for monetary compensation under the 2013 acquisition framework, and left policy debates over revenue motive and infrastructure impact to the political and planning process.