Stilt + 4 Debate Gains Relevance as Bengaluru Notifies Building Rule Changes

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, by order dated 02.04.2026 in Sunil Singh vs State of Haryana, has stayed the implementation of the “Stilt + 4 Floors” policy in Gurugram, citing inadequate infrastructure and absence of prior capacity assessment. The Court recorded that internal roads have effectively reduced to 3.9–4.8 meters against planned widths of 10–12 meters and emphasized that permitting higher density without infrastructure audit poses serious risks to public safety and urban sustainability. 

At the same time, in Bengaluru, significant regulatory changes are being initiated under the framework of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2025, through draft bye-laws notified by multiple city corporations including West, South and North Corporations.

These draft notifications explicitly invite objections from the public within 30 days before finalisation, indicating that the regulatory framework governing building permissions is presently in a transitional phase.

A notable shift in these proposed bye-law amendments is the regularisation framework for deviations, where:

• Deviations in setback, FAR and coverage up to specified limits can be condoned

• Compounding fees are introduced based on guidance value

• Even constructions without prior approvals may be regularised subject to payment and structural feasibility

Further, under the Government notification dated 05.02.2026, Premium FAR is permitted based on road width, with additional FAR being allowed up to 0.60 (and 0.40 without TDR in certain cases), and importantly, the authority to grant such FAR is vested in the respective city corporations within Greater Bengaluru. 

Conversation of Sunil Singh with State Of Haryana And Another:

Bengaluru Context – Legal and Planning Implications

While the High Court order is confined to Gurugram and has no direct applicability to Bengaluru, its reasoning assumes immediate relevance in light of the above regulatory changes.

The emerging framework in Bengaluru reflects:

• Decentralised approvals through multiple city corporations

• Increased flexibility in FAR and deviation regularisation

• Revenue-linked mechanisms such as Premium FAR and compounding fees

However, unlike the judicial concern raised in the Gurugram case, there is no explicit statutory requirement mandating a prior infrastructure capacity audit before permitting densification or regularising deviations.

This raises a critical legal question:

Whether increased floor area, deviation regularisation, and densification policies can be sustained in the absence of demonstrable infrastructure readiness.

The High Court’s reasoning suggests that courts may increasingly examine whether urban planning decisions are aligned with infrastructure capacity, particularly in cities experiencing pressure on roads, drainage, sewage, and mobility networks.

In a multi-corporation governance model, the issue further extends to uniformity and accountability, as varying implementation across corporations may lead to uneven infrastructure stress and fragmented planning outcomes.

Note: Relevant court order and Bengaluru notifications are being uploaded for reference.