The Karnataka High Court has declined to issue an interim stay on the grant of premium floor area ratio (FAR) to plot owners under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act. This decision came in response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a specific section of the act.
Court Upholds Presumption of Constitutional Validity
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha delivered the order on December 11. The bench explicitly stated it did not find Section 18B of the KTCP Act to be prima facie constitutionally invalid. The court emphasized the legal principle that a statute must be presumed valid unless proven otherwise.
In its detailed order, the bench noted, "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." This section specifically allows for the grant of additional construction space beyond the normally sanctioned FAR upon payment of premium charges to the state.
Petitioner's Challenge and Court's Reasoning
The case was filed by a landowner whose property was previously acquired by the state. Instead of standard monetary compensation, he had accepted Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). The petitioner argued that the introduction of the premium FAR scheme would devalue his TDRs, as the premium FAR was available at a rate below the prevailing market value for TDRs.
He also contended that allowing construction beyond the optimal floor area for a locality would place an undue burden on local infrastructure like roads and water supply. The petitioner had earlier unsuccessfully challenged the provision before a single-judge bench of the same high court.
Key Factor: Voluntary Acceptance of TDRs
The division bench, however, was not convinced that the petitioner's fundamental rights were infringed. A crucial point in the court's reasoning was the nature of TDRs. The bench observed that the petitioner had chosen to accept TDRs in lieu of regular compensation. Since TDRs are tradable instruments, he had the option to sell them on the market at any point.
The court pointed out that the petitioner retained the TDRs speculatively, hoping their value would appreciate. Therefore, a subsequent decrease in their market value, potentially caused by the premium FAR policy, could not be construed as a violation of his right to property. The bench found no merit in the argument that the change in TDR value affected his proprietary rights.
Consequently, the court refused to grant any interim orders or stays against the implementation of the premium FAR provisions. The matter has been listed for further hearing in February.
