Latest news with #BangalorePalace(AcquisitionandTransfer)Act
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Bangalore Palace grounds: Supreme Court suspends use/transfer of TDRs
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 29, 2025) froze the implementation of its May 22 order directing the State of Karnataka 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 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.
United News of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC refers Karnataka Govt's plea on Bangalore Palace TDR dispute to CJI
New Delhi, May 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice B. R. Gavai the Karnataka government's application challenging a direction for the issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family. CJI Gavai would now study the matter and could give appropriate orders on the constitution of a larger bench to hear the matter. The direction for placing the matter before the CJI came from a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, which expressed reservations about sitting in appeal over an order passed by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court. The matter arose out of a May 22 order passed by a bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, which, while hearing a batch of contempt petitions, directed the Karnataka government to release TDR certificates in respect of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds acquired by the state, valued at over Rs 3,000 crore in favour of the legal heirs of the Mysuru royal family. In response, the Karnataka government moved an application in the apex court in a connected civil appeal challenging the direction. Appearing for the state, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the May 22 order was issued in a contempt matter, while the present application was filed in an appeal that has been pending since 1997. Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing, 'How can we sit in appeal over an order passed by a coordinate Bench?' In support, Sibal submitted, 'This order has been passed in a contempt petition, but we are before the court in a connected appeal.' The bench noted that appropriate orders, including on whether the matter should be heard by a larger bench, must be sought from the Chief Justice of India. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be placed before CJI Gavai on the administrative side. The underlying dispute has its roots in 1996, when the Karnataka government enacted the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, seeking to acquire the Palace Grounds. The Act was upheld by the Karnataka High Court, which was subsequently challenged by the heirs of the royal family in a civil appeal before the Supreme Court in 1997, which remains pending. On Monday, the application was mentioned before a bench led by CJI B. R. Gavai, which agreed to list the matter today and remarked on the procedural question whether one bench could effectively review the order of another coordinate bench. Arguing against the retrospective grant of TDR, Sibal stated, 'TDR was permitted only after a 2004 amendment. It cannot be applied retrospectively.' On the other side, counsel for the claimants submitted that the matter had already become infructuous, asserting that the TDR certificates had already been issued in compliance with the earlier direction. The issue now awaits further consideration by a larger bench, subject to orders by the Chief Justice of India. UNI SNG SSP
The Hindu
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bangalore Palace grounds case: Supreme Court refers Karnataka's plea to CJI to consider setting up a larger Bench
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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
SC to hear Karnataka's plea against TDR grant to royal family heirs
The Supreme Court agreed to list for hearing on Tuesday a plea of the Karnataka government challenging grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysore royal family in connection with the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds. Initially, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, as to how it can review the order passed by another bench. On May 22, another bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had directed the Karnataka government to issue TDR certificates worth Rs 3,011 crore to the royal heirs in a contempt proceeding. However, the senior lawyer said the TDR provision, introduced through a 2004 amendment to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, cannot be applied retrospectively to land acquired in 1996 under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act. He said the 15 acres were acquired before the TDR provision existed, and that any compensation was already settled under the original Act. This acquisition occurred under a 1996 law, and compensation of Rs 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 and not where the State acquires it compulsorily, he said. The dispute dates back to 1997, when the royal family challenged the validity of the 1996 Act before the top court and the plea is still pending. Meanwhile, the state government sought to develop a road on a portion of the palace grounds, which triggered a series of litigations and ultimately led to the contempt petitions. The senior lawyer raised concerns about the contempt judgment, arguing that the bench failed to address his legal objections under Section 14B. You cannot amend a final judgment or introduce new rights via a contempt proceeding, he said. The bench questioned whether the current bench could sit in appeal over the order passed by a coordinate bench. Sibal clarified that the state government was not seeking to overturn the earlier order, but only to ensure that its legal concerns are properly addressed within the framework of the pending appeal. TDR certificates are a mechanism used in land acquisition to compensate landowners when their property is taken for public projects like road widening or infrastructure development.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court set to review Karnataka's challenge on TDR for royal heirs
The Supreme Court agreed to list for hearing on Tuesday a plea of the Karnataka government challenging grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysore royal family in connection with the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds . Initially, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, as to how it can review the order passed by another bench. On May 22, another bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had directed the Karnataka government to issue TDR certificates worth Rs 3,011 crore to the royal heirs in a contempt proceeding. However, the senior lawyer said the TDR provision, introduced through a 2004 amendment to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, cannot be applied retrospectively to land acquired in 1996 under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act. He said the 15 acres were acquired before the TDR provision existed, and that any compensation was already settled under the original Act. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like '제발… 엄마 먼저 가지 마세요' 월드비전 더 알아보기 Undo "This acquisition occurred under a 1996 law, and compensation of Rs 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 and not where the State acquires it compulsorily," he said. The dispute dates back to 1997, when the royal family challenged the validity of the 1996 Act before the top court and the plea is still pending. Meanwhile, the state government sought to develop a road on a portion of the palace grounds, which triggered a series of litigations and ultimately led to the contempt petitions. The senior lawyer raised concerns about the contempt judgment, arguing that the bench failed to address his legal objections under Section 14B. Live Events "You cannot amend a final judgment or introduce new rights via a contempt proceeding," he said. The bench questioned whether the current bench could "sit in appeal" over the order passed by a coordinate bench. Sibal clarified that the state government was not seeking to overturn the earlier order, but only to ensure that its legal concerns are properly addressed within the framework of the pending appeal. TDR certificates are a mechanism used in land acquisition to compensate landowners when their property is taken for public projects like road widening or infrastructure development.
