Bengaluru Building Rules: GBA Moves to Raise Permissible Deviation Limit from 5% to 15%

The Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) has proposed increasing the permissible deviation in building plans from 5% to 15% across the Greater Bengaluru Area, triggering a sharp debate among urban planners, activists and civic authorities in Bengaluru.

The draft amendment to GBA building rules is aimed at addressing widespread violations and clearing long-pending occupancy certificates (OCs) for an estimated 3 lakh to 3.5 lakh properties, but critics warn it could effectively regularise non-compliance across the city. These properties have remained in limbo after a Supreme Court order in December 2024 made OCs mandatory for electricity and water links. GBA officials estimate that at least 40% of the stuck properties could qualify once the higher deviation margin is notified, while civic bodies are also expected to gain extra revenue from regularisation fees.

Greater Bengaluru Area building deviation and draft bye-laws changes

The proposal Bengaluru City Corporation Building (Amendment) Bye-laws, 2026, issued on April 1 seeks to relax key norms including setbacks, floor area ratio (FAR), plot coverage and building height. It also introduces a graded compounding fee system, allowing property owners to pay penalties, regularise deviations and obtain OCs that were earlier denied due to plan violations. However, to maintain some level of control, deviation on any one side cannot exceed half of the required setback distance, measured linearly, which is meant to keep some control over crowding and ventilation.

The draft also revises rules related to Floor Area Ratio (FAR). For plots up to 500 square metres with buildings under 15 metres in height, a deviation of up to 15% in FAR may be allowed. For larger plots above 500 square metres and buildings taller than 15 metres, the permissible FAR deviation is limited to 5%, subject to conditions linked to additional FAR.

Where setback relaxation leads to built-up area exceeding standard limits, the excess may be regularised through Premium FAR or Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The notification clarifies that normal FAR deviation rules will not apply to buildings that have already used TDR or Premium FAR, or are eligible for them. In such cases, any additional built-up area must be adjusted through these mechanisms.

For buildings that have already used TDR or Premium FAR, further deviations can only be regularised through additional use of these instruments. The draft also allows deviation in overall building height up to 7.5%, but clearly states that extra floors constructed beyond approved plans will not be regularised.

A major change in the proposal is the shift in how penalties are calculated. Earlier, compounding fees were based on construction cost for deviations up to 5%. The new draft links penalties to the government's Guidance Value of the land, which reflects its notional market value and is periodically revised.

Under the proposed system, penalty ranges are:

Residential buildings: 3% to 10% of Guidance Value

Non-residential buildings: 6% to 12%

The compounding fee will apply only to the portion of the building that violates approved plans. Charges will be calculated on whichever is higher - the total FAR deviation area or the full setback violation area across floors. Currently, GBA collects around 5% of Guidance Value for converting B Khata properties to A Khata.

Officials expect the revised penalty structure to generate steady revenue for urban local bodies, though no city-wide estimate has been released. However, civic groups argue that revenue considerations should not come at the cost of planning discipline and safety in Bengaluru's already dense neighbourhoods.

Urban planning experts have warned that the move could weaken compliance and encourage further violations. R Rajagopalan, convener of Bengaluru Coalition, said the proposal risks legitimising enforcement failures. "Institutionalising a 15% deviation window without scientific study amounts to covering up repeated failures in enforcement and monitoring of unauthorised constructions, in violation of multiple Supreme Court directives mandating OCs for essential services," he said. Some planners also flagged legal concerns, arguing that such relaxation could conflict with past Supreme Court directions and revive the core idea behind the controversial Akrama Sakrama scheme, which aimed to regularise unauthorised constructions.

Safety concerns have also come to the forefront, with experts cautioning that relaxing norms linked to setbacks and FAR could increase risks. Pravalika Sarvadevabhatla from Jana Urban Space said the proposal shifts the goalpost instead of fixing enforcement gaps. "With only about 4% of buildings receiving occupancy certificates, the real issue is compliance. Setbacks and FAR are essential for safety, as seen in incidents like the Carlton Towers fire. Relaxing them increases risk," she said.

Civic authorities, however, have defended the amendment as a practical solution to a widespread issue. Officials pointed out that a majority of buildings in Bengaluru have some level of deviation, making strict enforcement or demolition unrealistic. A senior commissioner said allowing regularisation up to 15% would benefit both property owners and civic bodies. "We cannot demolish all such buildings, nor do we have the capacity. This is a practical approach," the official said, adding that the move could also generate revenue.

Officials estimate that civic bodies could earn around ₹3 lakh per building from those seeking OCs through the compounding route. GBA Chief Commissioner Maheshwar Rao said revenue is not the primary objective, but acknowledged that collections may increase. He noted that common plot sizes in Bengaluru, such as 30x40 or 40x60, often lead to minor deviations. "Allowing up to 15% may encourage more property owners to come forward and regularise. However, in many cases deviations exceed this limit, so the actual benefit remains to be seen," he said.

Despite the scale of the issue, authorities do not have reliable data on how many buildings violate approved plans. Neither the former Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) nor the GBA has conducted a comprehensive citywide survey. Officials said there are plans to digitise the issuance of notices to improve consistency and maintain proper records, as the current manual system remains uneven.

Critics have also raised concerns that the draft sidelines the Metropolitan Planning Committee mandated under Article 243-ZE, potentially weakening oversight. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that Bengaluru's rapid growth and standard plot sizes make minor deviations almost unavoidable, and that a structured 15% window with penalties could bring more buildings into the legal framework.

With thousands of buildings still awaiting occupancy certificates, the proposed amendment has opened a broader question for Bengaluru: should the city strictly enforce building rules or adopt a more practical approach to regularisation?