Bangalore Palace grounds: Supreme Court suspends use/transfer of TDRs
A Special Bench of three judges headed by Justice Surya Kant directed that the TDR certificates must continue to remain in the Supreme Court Registry.
When informed that the certificates had already been handed over to the claimants, the top court took the precaution of adding that TDRs, if any had been handed over, must not be transferred to third parties or utilised in any manner by the heirs.
The court ordered the review petition filed by the State against the May 22 order to be posted for hearing in the week commencing July 21.
'If the review petition is declined, the interim directions shall continue in force for four weeks from the date of passing such order,' the Bench directed.
It posted the main appeal in the Bangalore Palace grounds case for hearing on August 18.
On May 27, a Division Bench of Justices Kant and Dipankar Datta had referred the application made by the State of Karnataka against the May 22 order to the Chief Justice of India for the formation of a three-judge Bench to examine the issue.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate T. Harish Kumar, for the legal heirs, had called the application of the State a sheer abuse of the law.
But Mr. Sibal asked how TDRs worth ₹3,011.66 crore could be released for land measuring just over 15 acres when the main appeals challenging the acquisition of the larger extent of land measuring 472 acres under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 were still pending in the Supreme Court.
He had queried whether a direction could be passed to the State in parallel contempt proceedings to shell out nearly ₹3,011.66 crore worth of valuable TDRs for the land when the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 had fixed an amount of Rs. 11 crore as compensation for the entire extent of 472 acres.
The senior lawyer had argued that the top court, in its May 22 order, 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 had questioned if a provision introduced into the KTCP Act in 2004 could retrospectively be applied to set aside an acquisition dating back to 1996.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
SC to deliver order on plea against shifting stray dogs to shelters on Aug 22
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court's three-judge special bench is expected to pronounce on Friday its order on a batch of pleas seeking a stay on directions issued on August 11 by a two-judge bench to round up and move all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to shelters. The bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, had reserved its order on August 14 after hearing arguments from petitioners, the Centre, the Delhi government and others. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioner NGOs, sought a stay on the August 11 order, saying there were not enough shelters to house stray dogs. 'There are the ABC (Animal Birth Control) rules in this regard. There is a Parliamentary legislation,' he said. Sibal questioned the role of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 'What have they been doing over the years? Have they built shelter homes? Since they have not sterilised, dog numbers increased. Since they have no owners, the community is taking care of them,' he argued. He further said: 'Where are the shelters? Where are the pounds? They will be culled. So the August 11 order should be stayed on an interim basis.' Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi supported Sibal's contentions, saying the order ignored previous directions against en masse removal of stray dogs. Following the August 11 order, dog lovers expressed outrage, prompting the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to constitute a three-judge bench to address conflicting rulings on the issue. During the August 14 hearing, the court observed: 'The government did nothing. The local authorities do nothing. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. They should be here taking responsibility. Everyone who has come here to file intervention should take responsibility.' The bench did not stay the earlier order by Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which directed Delhi-NCR authorities to remove stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and house them in shelters. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, told the court about 3.7 million dog bites occur annually in India (amounting to nearly 10,000 a day) and cited World Health Organisation data of 20,000 rabies deaths each year. He said children were unable to play outside due to stray dogs and argued that even immunised dogs could still attack. 'Nobody is saying kill dogs. They need to be separated for the safety of people,' SG Mehta said. The court criticised the MCD for its inaction. 'Parliament frames rules and laws, but these are not implemented. On one hand, humans are suffering and on the other hand, the animal lovers are here. Have some responsibility... all those who have filed interventions have to file affidavits and furnish evidence,' the bench said while reserving its order. It directed all intervenors challenging the August 11 order to file affidavits.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delay in handover of flat in Kakkanad: Compensation and rent to be paid to consumer
Kochi: Ernakulam district consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered real estate developer DLF to pay compensation for delaying the handover of a flat by nearly four years and charging additional fees. The order was issued by based on a complaint by Seena Susan Kuruvilla and her son Mithun Kuruvilla regarding the DLF New Town Heights project in Kakkanad. In May 2010, the complainants booked an apartment at DLF New Town Heights, Kakkanad, for Rs 34.29 lakh. The agreement stipulated that the flat would be handed over by Jan 19, 2013. However, despite paying 95% of the amount, the flat was handed over only in Sept 2017. During this period, an additional Rs 10.22 lakh was demanded and paid under pressure. Furthermore, Rs 2.74 lakh was charged for an alleged increase in the apartment area during construction. The complainants also reported that the quality of the apartment was substandard, with inadequate water supply and electrical work, and that money was illegally withdrawn from their loan account. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the commission observed that the builder's failure to hand over the flat on time constituted a serious deficiency in service. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo Consumers cannot be forced to wait indefinitely for possession of their flats, and they are entitled to compensation in such situations. The commission found DLF guilty of serious service deficiencies and unfair trade practices. For the delay in handing over the flat, DLF must pay interest at 12% on the flat's price of Rs 34.29 lakh for the four-year period from the promised handover date to the actual handover date. The commission said that DLF must also refund Rs 5.76 lakh spent by the complainants on rent due to the delay. Additionally, the commission ordered the opposing parties to pay Rs 1.10 lakh as compensation for the complainants' mental distress, inconvenience and court costs within 45 days. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC: Wouldn't Guv's unlimited power render an elected govt defunct?
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked about the "safeguard" for a "duly elected government in case a governor is vested with "unlimited power". The query fell from the Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai during the resumed hearing of a presidential reference case on whether the top court can lay down timelines and procedures for the president and governors. Speaking for the five-member bench, the CJI verbally asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta "what happens to the democratic setup and the will of the people" if a governor is given "unlimited power" to withhold a bill passed by the legislature. "Wouldn't that render a duly elected government defunct," the CJI asked. The bench also questioned if a governor holds the bill for years would that be outside judicial review . "Will courts be powerless to act when a governor sits over a bill passed by a legislature for years," the CJI asked. The CJI added "this court is a custodian of the Constitution. Suppose a constitutional functionary which is entrusted with certain functions refuses to discharge those functions without any valid reasons, whether the hands of constitutional courts would be tied?" The CJI said if "there is a wrong, there has to be a remedy". In response, Mehta argued that all problems cannot have a solution in the court. He said there has to be a " political solution " to such an impasse (between the governor and legislature). Mehta also argued that "certain constitutional functions of governor are not justiciable. Justiciability is variable". Mehta added "mere justification does not confer jurisdiction (on court)". The solicitor general further argued that "only constitutional supremacy shall prevail. Neither Parliament nor judicial supremacy". Elaborating, Mehta argued that there are "polycentric problem solutions which lie in a political sphere, not in courts". He emphasized on the argument that "some issues are non justiciable". And that "separation of powers is a two way street".
