The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list for hearing on Tuesday a plea filed by the Karnataka government challenging the grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates worth ₹3,011 crore to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysore royal family in connection with the acquisition of 15 acres of the Bangalore Palace Grounds.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih took up the state government’s urgent request to examine whether the order passed by another bench could be reviewed. The state was represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who argued that the May 22 order by a coordinate bench — Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar — was flawed in law.
The previous order, delivered in contempt proceedings, directed the Karnataka government to issue TDR certificates to the royal family’s legal heirs for land acquired in 1996 under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act. Sibal submitted that the basis of the contempt ruling — Section 14B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, which allows TDR in certain circumstances — was inapplicable to the present case.
“This acquisition occurred under a 1996 law, and compensation of ₹11 crore was fixed. The concept of TDR didn’t exist at that time. Section 14B, which permits TDR, was introduced only in 2004, and applies only where landowners voluntarily surrender their land — not where the State acquires it compulsorily,” Sibal submitted.
The bench questioned whether it could revisit or sit in appeal over the order of a coordinate bench. However, Sibal clarified that the state government was not seeking to overturn the earlier decision but merely to ensure that its legal objections, especially the retrospective application of the TDR provisions, are duly considered within the framework of the pending appeal regarding the validity of the 1996 Act.
The protracted legal dispute dates back to 1997, when the royal family challenged the constitutional validity of the 1996 acquisition law. The case is still pending before the apex court. In the interim, a fresh round of litigation began after the state sought to develop a road on a portion of the acquired palace land, culminating in the contempt petition that led to the issuance of the TDR directive.
Sibal also contended that “you cannot amend a final judgment or introduce new rights via a contempt proceeding,” asserting that the May 22 order had effectively rewritten the legal rights of the parties in dispute.
TDR certificates are a form of compensation that allow landowners whose property is acquired for public infrastructure to receive development credits, which can be sold or used in other approved areas.
The court will now hear the state government’s plea on May 28.
