Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today, as an interim measure, directed that the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates issued in respect of acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds shall remain with the Registry of the Court.

In case the TDRs have been released to the non-applicants, the same shall not be utilized or sold, the Court said.

To recap, while dealing with a batch of contempt petitions on May 22, the Supreme Court had directed Karnataka government to release TDR certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family in respect of the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds. Thereafter, the Karnataka government filed an application in a connected appeal against the release of TDR certificates.

Today, a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, passed the following directions to "protect interest of both sides":

- All proceedings are ordered to be placed before a 3-judge bench for final hearing in the week commencing 18 August;

- As an interim measure, all TDRs issued pursuant to interim/contempt orders passed by this Court shall remain intact with Registry of this Court. If they have been handed over to appellant (non-applicants), they are directed not to utilize or sell the TDRs/DRCs till further orders;

- No third party interest or personal benefit shall be drawn out of the TDRs/DRCs released by the Registry of this Court;

- Review petition filed by State shall be listed before Hon'ble bench in the week commencing 21 July.

The Court added that the directions are subject to outcome of the review petition. However, if it is declined, interim directions shall continue for 4 weeks and/or until matter is heard by 3-judge bench.

To avoid further complications, the Court also said that the consequential effect of an order passed in 2014 and those dated 10.12.2024, 17.05.2022, 19.03.2024 and 22.05.2025 shall be kept in abeyance.

After the order was dictated, Justice Kant opined that there seemed to be a "bonafide error" in the 2014 order of the Court due to lack of proper assistance.

"It appears there was some bonafide error in 2014 order due to lack of assistance...Justice Vikramjit Sen has been in Karnataka, his lordship probably knew it that TDRs are issued...nobody from state side could probably assist properly at that time...that TDR is issued under a different statute...when there is likelihood of an order resulting in an irreversible adverse impact on public interest, sometimes you have to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction...if you can...entire scheme has to be shifted under the Town and Planning Act, there you voluntarily surrender your land...status quo can't take away effect of legislative Act", said the judge.

The origin of the dispute dates back to 1996 when the State passed the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act for acquisition of palace grounds in Bangalore. The High Court upheld the Act, against which appeal was filed by the royal family heirs in 1997, and the same has been pending in the Supreme Court since 1997.

On May 26, the state government's application was mentioned by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a CJI BR Gavai-led bench, which agreed to list the matter today while wondering if another bench could sit in appeal over the order passed by the bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar on May 22.

Sibal argued that since TDR was allowed only as per an amendment passed in 2004, it could not be given retrospective effect. The Court has directed issuance of TDRs worth over Rs 3000 crores for about 15 acres of palace grounds acquired for the road-widening project, he said.

The claimants' counsel, on the other hand, claimed that the matter had become infructuous as the TDRs were already granted. However, CJI left the same to be considered on the next day.

On May 27, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta expressed similar dilemma as to how it could sit in appeal over order passed by the Coordinate bench. When Sibal pointed out that the order was passed in a contempt matter, but the application is filed in a connected appeal, the bench suggested that appropriate orders be sought from the CJI (including, on the aspect of constitution of a larger bench).

Later, the matter was posted before a 3-judge bench today.

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