A few days after the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka Government to issue Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the Mysuru royal family for the acquisition of 15 acres of the Bangalore Palace Grounds, the Karnataka Government has now filed an application challenging this direction.
This direction was issued by a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar on May 22 in a group of contempt petitions. The State's recent application, contesting the release of the TDR certificates, is tied to a connected appeal that has been pending since 1997.
Read also: Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response on Suggestions to Reform Sex Education and Real-Time
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Karnataka Government, mentioned the urgent application before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. The CJI agreed to list the matter for hearing the next day but questioned if one bench can sit in appeal over another bench’s decision.
Back in 1996, the State Government passed the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act to acquire the Bangalore Palace grounds. The High Court upheld this Act. However, the royal family heirs filed an appeal in 1997, which has been pending in the Supreme Court since then.
Read also: Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Court as "Lower Court" is Against the Constitution
According to Sibal, the TDR system was introduced only through a 2004 amendment to the Karnataka Town and Planning Act. He argued that this amendment cannot apply retrospectively to acquisitions made under the 1996 Act. He highlighted that the bench directed the issuance of TDRs worth Rs 3,011 crores for the 15-acre acquisition used for a road-widening project.
Sibal stated before the court:
“This matter concerns the 1996 Karnataka legislature Act acquiring palace grounds. Compensation was fixed at Rs 11 crores. The matter reached the Supreme Court in 1997 and has been pending for 28 years. Meanwhile, the State needed to develop a public road. The respondents filed an application in the appeal for permission to develop the road. The other side sought compensation, even though the land was vested in the State. After years of hearings, a contempt petition was filed for TDR rights over the 15 acres. However, TDR rights can’t be granted because the provision came only with the 2004 amendment under Section 14B, which states that a local authority can acquire land with the owner's consent and grant TDR rights. This acquisition was in 1996. The Court directed TDR worth Rs 3,011 crores to the claimant without deciding the Act, even though I argued that Section 14B can’t apply retrospectively.”
At this point, a lawyer for the claimants said the TDR certificates had already been handed over the previous Friday, with the Court’s direction issued after considering all arguments.
Sibal questioned the legality of the TDR grant:
“How can TDR be granted in law when the provision came into effect only in 2004? How can it apply retrospectively?”
CJI Gavai asked:
“How can we sit in appeal over the order passed by another bench?”
Sibal clarified:
“I am not asking to sit in appeal. I argued 14B, but the Court didn’t consider it. How can a contempt judgment allow this? We are the landowners. I have filed an application in the appeal. The review petition hasn’t been heard. As a matter of law, can a provision apply retrospectively?”
CJI Gavai agreed to list the matter for hearing the next day. However, a lawyer from the claimants' side mentioned that the matter is now infructuous as the TDR certificates were already handed over. The CJI noted this point and said it could be considered in the hearing.
