Premium

Karnataka High Court refuses to order stay against grant premium floor area ratio in construction

The Karnataka High Court noted that the petitioner chose to accept Transferable Development Rights instead of regular compensation, and, as they were tradable, he could have sold them at any time.

3 min readBengaluruDec 18, 2025 05:25 PM IST

The Karnataka High Court refused to grant any interim orders or stays at the time, listing the matter for further hearing in February. (Source: File)

The Karnataka High Court has refused to stay the grant of premium floor area ratio for plot owners under provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act after a petitioner challenged the legality of a section.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha, in an order passed on December 11, did not agree that Section 18b was prima facie constitutionally invalid.

“The statute must be presumed to be constitutionally valid, unless it is established otherwise. In this case, we are unable to readily accept that Section 18B of the KTCP Act is required to be struck down as violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, on account of excessive delegation, or as falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” said the bench.

Section 18b of the KTCP Act, which provides for the grant of premium space above the usually sanctioned floor area space after levying premium charges.

The state had previously acquired the petitioner’s lands, and he had been granted Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) rather than monetary compensation. He was aggrieved that the premium floor area ratio concept would reduce the value of TDR, as the former was below the market rate for TDR.

The petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged it before a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner argued before the division bench (aside from contentions regarding the impact on TDR value) that floor area is based on optimal construction for a particular area, and allowing premium constructions above this would impose a greater burden on local infrastructure.

The bench also did not agree that the change in value of TDR had affected the petitioner’s right to property. The bench pointed out that the petitioner chose to accept TDRs in place of regular compensation, and as they were tradable, he could have sold them at any time. As he had retained them in the hope that the value would increase, his rights could not be affected by a decrease in value due to Premium Floor Area schemes.

Story continues below this ad

The Karnataka High Court refused to grant any interim orders or stays at the time, listing the matter for further hearing in February.