The proposed amendment to the Bengaluru City Corporation Building Bylaws 2026, which seeks to relax the limit for building violations to up to 15 percent, has not been welcomed by all. The Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) has formally received around 25 objections against the move.
Objections and Defence
The objections emphasize that this officially opens the doors for regularizing all building violations. However, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar defended the proposal, stating it was necessary to address long-pending occupancy certificate issues in the city.
“Due to intense demand for land in the city and growing development pressures, property owners have built structures violating the plans without maintaining the required setbacks. The law allows up to 50% setback concessions... We are now granting only 15% exemption,” he stated.
According to sources in the town planning sections across all five city corporations under GBA, the objections and suggestions were submitted by the public through emails, letters, and other representations before the April 30 deadline. Senior officials said the objections largely question the statutory validity of the proposal, while many respondents have flagged concerns that the amendment resembles an “Akrama-Sakrama-type” regularisation mechanism and could encourage further deviations and building violations in the city.
Shivakumar countered: “We are not legalising illegalities.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s direction against providing electricity and water connections to buildings without occupancy certificates, he said the government was attempting to resolve the issue, and a decision is expected in the upcoming cabinet meeting.
Amendment Details
The draft amendment, notified on April 1, proposes regularisation of building deviations of up to 15% in setbacks, floor area ratio (FAR), plot coverage, and building height, subject to the payment of compounding fees linked to the guidance value of the property. The provision applies to both residential and non-residential buildings, with different slabs based on plot size and extent of deviation.
As per the proposal, deviations of up to 15% may be regularised in buildings constructed on plots up to 500 square meters, while slightly tighter limits apply to larger plots. The amendment also introduces a detailed fee structure for violations such as setback infringements, excess FAR, unauthorised terrace construction, basement extensions, and occupancy without obtaining certificates.
Officials have proposed that such violations may be regularised if demolition is deemed infeasible without affecting the structural stability of the building, with the commissioner empowered to approve such cases after recording reasons.
Citizen Voices
S Rajgopalan, Bengaluru Coalition: “This is nothing but a series of creeping relaxations, none of which has any urban planning science behind it. Senseless grant of amnesty through payments cannot be made into law without consequences. Such proposals encourage violations instead of enforcing discipline. Citizen groups would challenge the move legally if required.”
Namma Whitefield Residents Welfare Association Federation: “We term this proposal a backdoor introduction of an Akrama-Sakrama-type mechanism. Repeated regularisation measures could legitimise illegal constructions, weaken planned urban development, and increase pressure on already strained civic infrastructure, including roads, drainage, and emergency access systems.”
MK Sridharan, Civic Solutions: “The amendment sends the wrong signal by allowing repeated regularisation of violations. Authorities should first strictly enforce existing rules for upcoming constructions instead of repeatedly attempting regularisation. On one side, buildings continue violating norms, and on the other, the government is trying to regularise them. Reduced setbacks could lead to neighbour disputes, fire safety risks, and increased litigation in the future.”
