Govt Moves to Correct PFAR Framework Amid Ongoing Court Scrutiny

Bengaluru: In a significant policy shift, the Karnataka Government has issued a fresh notification indicating corrective steps in the regulatory framework governing Premium FAR (Floor Area Ratio), in the backdrop of ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny before courts.

The latest notification dated 21.04.2026 withdraws key provisions related to impact zone Premium FAR under the Revised Master Plan (RMP)–2015, specifically Clause 3.4(vi), along with earlier TDR-related provisions in Chapter-10 of the Zonal Regulations . The government has clarified that these provisions had already become “inoperative” due to subsequent statutory changes, including the introduction of dedicated rules governing Premium FAR and Development Rights.

This move is being seen as a course correction, particularly in light of arguments raised in ongoing litigation challenging the implementation and legal basis of PFAR. By formally withdrawing overlapping and outdated provisions, the government appears to be aligning the regulatory framework with the amended provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Planning Authority Rules.

Notably, the notification records that Premium FAR is now governed under Rule 37-E introduced in 2021, thereby rendering earlier zonal regulation provisions redundant . Similarly, the earlier TDR framework under RMP-2015 has been superseded by separate statutory rules notified in 2017.

From a policy perspective, this indicates that the government is responding to legal and administrative inconsistencies flagged during court proceedings, particularly concerns regarding duplication, lack of clarity, and overlapping regulatory mechanisms.

While the PFAR regime itself continues to remain in force under the amended rules, this notification attempts to streamline the legal framework and may have implications on how courts assess the validity and implementation of PFAR in pending cases.

Observers note that further clarity may emerge depending on how the courts interpret these corrective steps, especially in matters questioning the extent of powers exercised by planning authorities and the impact of PFAR on urban planning norms.