A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) the Karnataka government’s challenge regarding the release of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates related to the acquisition of Bangalore Palace Grounds. The certificates are meant for the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family.

The issue arises from a May 22 order in which the Supreme Court directed Karnataka to issue TDR certificates for about 15 acres of the Bangalore Palace Grounds. This order came while dealing with a batch of contempt petitions. Following this, the Karnataka government filed an application in a related appeal case, contesting the release of TDR certificates.

Read also: SC Collegium Recommends New Chief Justices for Five High Courts

Today, Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta on the bench expressed uncertainty about hearing this challenge. They questioned whether they could hear an appeal against an order passed by another bench of the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Karnataka government, pointed out that the May 22 order was issued in a contempt matter, but the government’s application was filed in a connected appeal.

The bench suggested that the issue, including the possibility of forming a larger bench, be placed before the CJI for appropriate administrative orders.

"The matter is placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for further directions."

This legal battle traces back to 1996, when the Karnataka government passed the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act to acquire the palace grounds. The High Court upheld the Act, prompting an appeal by the Mysuru royal family’s heirs in 1997. This appeal has been pending before the Supreme Court since then.

Read also: Centre Appoints 7 Advocates as High Court Judges Across India

Yesterday, the Karnataka government’s request was mentioned before a bench led by CJI BR Gavai. The court agreed to list the matter for today but raised a key question about whether one bench could hear an appeal against an order of another.

"Whether one bench can sit in appeal over the order passed by another bench needs to be examined," observed the CJI.

Kapil Sibal argued that TDR certificates were allowed only due to an amendment made in 2004 and could not be applied retrospectively. He highlighted that the court’s directive involved issuing TDRs worth over ₹3,000 crore for approximately 15 acres of palace land acquired for road-widening purposes.

However, the legal heirs’ counsel argued that the matter had become irrelevant since TDRs were already granted. Despite this, the CJI said the issue would be considered during today’s hearing.

Read also: SC Collegium Recommends Three High Court Judges for Supreme Court Elevation

"The claimants argue the matter has become infructuous as TDRs were already granted. The Court will examine this aspect," the CJI noted.

Case Title: SRI SRIKANTA D N WADIYAR (D) BY LR. Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., C.A. No. 3303/1997