New Delhi, May 26 (UNI) The Karnataka Government has moved the Supreme Court challenging its earlier direction to issue Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates worth approximately Rs 3,011 crores to the legal heirs of the Mysuru royal family for the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds for a road-widening project.
The apex court had, on May 22, passed the directive in a batch of contempt petitions.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar ordered the State to release the TDRs.
Now, the State has filed a fresh application in a pending appeal from 1997, opposing the issuance of the TDRs.
Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the application before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai this morning for urgent listing. The CJI agreed to hear the matter tomorrow, while also questioning whether one bench could effectively sit in appeal over an order passed by another.
“This relates to a 1996 Act,” Sibal explained, referring to the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, under which the State had acquired 472 acres of palace grounds.
Although the Karnataka High Court upheld the Act, the royal family appealed to the Supreme Court in 1997, and the matter has remained pending without a stay for 28 years.
In the interim, the State sought to develop a public road over 15 acres of the land. The royal heirs demanded compensation, leading to prolonged litigation and ultimately a contempt petition seeking TDRs for the acquired portion.
Sibal contended that TDRs cannot be granted, as the provision for awarding them under Section 14B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act was introduced only in 2004, and cannot apply retrospectively to acquisitions made in 1996.
“You can’t amend a court judgment through a contempt petition,” Sibal asserted, criticising the May 22 order.
He further argued that the Supreme Court had overlooked this legal bar, stating: “We kept arguing that Section 14B doesn’t apply. The court never considered it, and just ordered the release of TDRs.”
When the CJI questioned, “How can we sit in appeal over an order passed by another bench?”, Sibal clarified that he was not seeking a review of the contempt order, but merely a stay on the implementation until the main appeal is decided.
At this point, a lawyer for the royal family told the bench that the TDRs had already been issued last Friday, and that the Court had passed its order after hearing both sides.
“Whether the application is infructuous or not can be considered tomorrow,” the CJI concluded, listing the matter for urgent hearing.
The legal battle now hinges on a key constitutional question: Can a statutory provision introduced in 2004 be used to grant retrospective benefits for an acquisition made under a 1996 law?
