Institute of Legal and Management Studies

A few days after the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka Government to release the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family in respect of the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds, the State Government filed an application against the grant of TDR certificates.

The direction to release the TDR certificates was passed by a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar on May 22 in a batch of contempt petitions. Now, the State has filed an application against the release of such TDR certificates in a connected appeal, which has been pending since 1997.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State, today morning mentioned the application before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. CJI BR Gavai agreed to list the matter tomorrow, but after wondering whether the bench can sit in appeal over the direction passed by another bench.

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

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

Sibal submitted as follows :

"This matter pertains to the Act passed by the Karnataka legislature in 1996 qua the acquisition of palace grounds in Bangalore. And compensation was fixed as 11 crores. That matter was challenged in the High Court. The High Court upheld the Act. The matter came up in the Supreme Court in 1997. In appeal, no stay was granted, and it has been pending for 28 years. This related to 472 acres of land. In the meantime, the State wanted to develop a public road. An application was filed by the respondents (State) in the appeal, seeking permission to develop the road. The other side said, give us compensation, even though the land vested in the State. That matter went on for several years. The other side said they are occupying 15 acres. A contempt petition was filed ultimately before this court, saying give them TDR rights for taking over the road (15 acres). We said TDR rights can't be given for the simple reason TDR came into place only in 2004, when the Act was amended -the Karnataka Town and Planning Act. Section 14B said , if a local authority wants land, and the owner himself gives up the right, he will get TDR right. This acquisition was of 1996. Now, this Court has said you hand over TDR worth 3011 crores to the claimant for 15 acres, without deciding the Act. And I kept on arguing 14B doesn't apply, it can't have a retrospective effect. You can't amend the judgment of a Court through a contempt petition. The Court doesn't even mention this, and says hand over the TDR. So today, the TDRs will be handed over. We filed an application in the appeal, that till this application is decided, nothing should be done. Please fix it tomorrow any time."

At this juncture, a lawyer representing the claimants said that TDRs were already handed over last Friday and the direction was passed after considering all the above submissions.

"How can TDR be granted in law, when the Act doesn't apply? TDR came into force only in 2004. How can they be granted retrospectively?" Sibal asked.

"How can we sit in appeal over the order passed by another bench?" Gavai asked.

"I am not asking to sit in appeal. What I am saying is we argued 14B, and the court doesn't look. How can in a contempt judgment this be allowed. We are the owners of land. I have filed an application in appeal. Review peititon not heard. As a matter of law, can a provision of law apply retrospectively?" Sibal submitted.

CJI Gavai then agreed to list the matter tomorrow. Another lawyer from the claimants' side stated that the matter is infructuous as the TDRs were already granted. CJI said this aspect can be considered tomorrow.