Recent Amendments in Karnataka’s Real Estate Sector: Legal Conflicts Between Ecological Preservation and Urban Expansion
The 2026 Amendment retains the prohibition on non-utility activities within buffer zones, while carving out a limited exception for public utilities subject to prior KTCDA approval
The regulation of buffer zones around lakes in Karnataka has been a cornerstone of environmental law, balancing Bengaluru’s exponential urban growth against ecological imperatives. The foundational statute, the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014 (“KTCDA Act”), established a uniform 30 metres buffer zone from the outer boundary of any water body, prohibiting unauthorized construction, commercial, recreational, or industrial activities therein. This legislative intervention was prompted by the precipitous decline of Bengaluru’s lake ecosystem, which, from a count exceeding 1,800 unique lakes in the 1970s, has been reduced by nearly 85% owing to rampant encroachments, thereby critically undermining groundwater recharge capacity and flood mitigation functions.1
Thereafter, in the landmark judgment in Forward Foundation v. State of Karnataka, the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) invoked the precautionary principle under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, expanding buffers to 75 metres around major lakes such as Bellandur and Agara.2 The Karnataka High Court integrated 75 meters setbacks into the Revised Master Plan 2031, classifying lakes as ‘A Zone’ areas impervious to zoning relaxations. The NGT further delineated buffers for stormwater drain: 50 metres (primary), 35 metres (secondary), and 25 metres (tertiary). These revised norms intersect with broader frameworks viz (i) Environment Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Notification, 2006, which require prior Environmental Clearance (“EC”) for projects exceeding 20,000 square meters;3 (ii) consent requirements from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (“KSPCB”) under Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and (iii) the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, Rule 41, which imposes a 100 meters buffer around reserved forests.
Present Scenario: The 2026 Amendment: Provisions and Structural Changes
Enacted as Karnataka Act No. 19 of 2026 and notified on February 18, 2026 of the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2025 (“2026 Amendment”), the 2026 Amendment restructures Section 12 of the KTCDA Act and abolishes the uniform 30 meters buffer and introducing a graduated, area-based system measured from the revenue boundary. This signifies a major shift from the prior metrics of Full Tank Level (“FTL”) or bund-edge, potentially expanding effective buffers by 10-20 meters in contested cases.
The new Schedule to Section 12(3) prescribes:
|
Tank Area (acres/guntas) |
Buffer from Revenue Boundary (meters) |
|---|---|
|
Up to 0.05 |
0 |
|
Above 0.05 to 0.10 |
1.00 |
|
Above 0.10 to 1.00 |
3.00 |
|
Above 1.00 to 10.00 |
6.00 |
|
Above 10.00 to 25.00 |
12.00 |
|
Above 25.00 to 100.00 |
24.00 |
|
Above 100.00 |
30.00 |
The 2026 Amendment now permits the development of essential infrastructure including roads, bridges, water pipelines, sewage treatment plants, pump houses, and electrical installations within tank beds or in the interstitial area between the FTL and the maximum water level. Such permissions, however, are subject to approval by the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (“KTCDA”) and are conditioned on ensuring that there is no reduction in storage capacity or obstruction to natural water flow.
The 2026 Amendment retains the prohibition on non-utility activities within buffer zones, while carving out a limited exception for public utilities subject to prior KTCDA approval. Notably, the amendment omits the erstwhile Section 12(6) of the KTCDA Act, thereby eliminating the scope for executive overrides that previously existed under the regulatory framework of the KTCDA Act. Further, the 2026 Amendment aligns buffer zone regulation with the location and establishment norms prescribed by the KSPCB under the Karnataka Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1976, reinforcing coherence between lake conservation norms and pollution control standards.
Rationale Behind the Reform
The 2026 Amendment is driven by a pragmatic reassessment of urban land constraints. The earlier uniform buffer regime sterilised large tracts of peri-urban land, constraining development in a rapidly expanding metropolitan context. The graded approach differentiates between ecologically critical water bodies and smaller tanks with limited practical contribution, seeking to unlock land for affordable housing and infrastructure.
However, the shift has attracted criticism for risking dilution of established environmental safeguards and facilitating incremental encroachments under the guise of permissible use. These concerns are primarily anchored in the public trust doctrine recognised in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, which imposes a heightened standard of scrutiny on legislative measures that relax environmental protections, particularly where such relaxation disproportionately benefits private development interests at the expense of ecological integrity.4 As a matter of fact, the NGT has initiated suo motu proceedings in Re: Karnataka Lake Buffer Zone Amendment, O.A. No. 75/2025, to review the constitutional and environmental validity of the revised framework under the 2026 Amendment and the decision is pending as on date.
Conclusion
The 2026 Amendment represents a pragmatic recalibration of Karnataka’s lake buffer zone framework, reconciling ecological stewardship with the imperatives of sustainable urban development. For real estate stakeholders, the graded buffer regime affords considerably greater flexibility for peri-urban development and provides a structured pathway for infrastructure-proximate projects hitherto constrained by the erstwhile uniform buffer, a welcome departure with the potential to catalyse affordable housing and critical infrastructure across the metropolitan region. That said, the concurrent overlay of judicial scrutiny introduces a measure of regulatory uncertainty. Projects proximate to water bodies may face interim delays, heightened compliance obligations, and potential liability under Real Estate Regulatory Authority in instances of non-disclosure of buffer zone constraints. Notwithstanding these considerations, the long-term transformative potential of the 2026 Amendment remains substantial, provided the State substantiates its graduated approach through credible scientific evidence and ensures robust institutional oversight in its implementation.
Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and are purely informative in nature.
1. Karnataka Tank Conservation & Dev. Auth. (Am.) Act, No. 19, § 12 (2026)
2. Forward Foundation v. State of Karnataka, NGT S. No. 12 of 2016 (2016)
3. EIA Notification, 2006, S.O. 1533(E)
4. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388