The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 27, 2025) referred to the Chief Justice of India an application filed by the State of Karnataka questioning an apex court direction to release Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates of over ₹3,000 crore for 15 acres and 17.5 guntas of Bangalore Palace ground, acquired for widening the Ballari and Jayamahal roads, to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta referred the case to the Chief Justice to consider, on the administrative side, whether the application must be heard by a larger Bench of three judges.
On May 22, a Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had passed the direction to issue the TDR certificates.
On Tuesday, Justices Kant and Datta posed the very same question Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had asked the State on May 26. That is, whether a Division Bench of the Supreme Court could sit in appeal of a decision passed by another two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
The State of Karnataka was represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who initially agreed to file another application for hearing before a larger Bench. He urged the Bench to keep this one pending in the meanwhile.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate T. Harish Kumar said the application by the State questioning the apex court direction of May 22 was sheer abuse of the law.
Mr. Sibal countered that the State’s application was not an appeal. “How can TDR for ₹3,011.66 crore be given for just 15 acres of land when appeals challenging the acquisition of the larger extent of land measuring 472 acres under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 are still pending here?” Mr. Sibal submitted.
He queried how a direction could be passed to the State in parallel contempt proceedings to shell out nearly Rs. 3011.66 crore worth of valuable TDRs for the land when the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 had fixed an amount of ₹11 crore as compensation for the entire extent of 472 acres.
“Besides, the BPAT Act 1996 was also upheld by the High Court of Karnataka,” Mr. Sibal argued.
He argued that the apex court had erred in applying a procedure for payment of compensation under Section 14B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
The senior advocate questioned if a provision introduced into the KTCP Act in 2004 could retrospectively be applied to set aside an acquisition dating back to 1996.
Published – May 27, 2025 02:03 pm IST
