Supreme Court to hear Karnataka’s plea against TDR order in Palace Grounds case

author-image
Chaitanyesh
Updated On
‘Balance of convenience important’: SC refuses to stay appointment of election commissioners
Advertisment
  • Case concerns acquisition of 15 acres of land from Bangalore Palace Grounds
  • Karnataka argues that the 2004 amendment cannot be applied retrospectively
  • Original challenge to 1996 Act by the royal family remains pending in apex court

The Supreme Court will hear a petition filed by the Karnataka government challenging a contempt order that directed the state to issue Transferable Development Rights (TDR) worth ₹3,011 crore to the Mysore royal family's legal heirs. The case concerns the acquisition of 15 acres of land from the Bangalore Palace Grounds.

Also read: Karnataka strengthens control over Bengaluru Palace Grounds, blocks TDR to royal family

TDR certificates are a form of compensation allowing landowners to develop other properties when their land is taken for public projects. The royal heirs were granted TDRs by a Supreme Court bench in May during contempt proceedings related to the state’s delay in complying with earlier court directions.

Karnataka has opposed the order, arguing that the 2004 amendment introducing TDR provisions to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act cannot be applied retrospectively. The state maintains that the original acquisition was carried out under the 1996 Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, under which compensation had already been determined at ₹11 crore.

The state further contends that TDR provisions apply only to voluntary land surrender, not to land acquired through compulsion. The original challenge to the 1996 Act by the royal family remains pending in the apex court. The ongoing legal tussle intensified after the government attempted to build a road through the palace grounds, triggering fresh litigation and contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court bench acknowledged procedural limitations but agreed to hear the state’s legal objections in the ongoing appeal.

Advertisment