Kapil Sibal Today (May 26) questioned Supreme Court order’s legality of awarding TDR under a 2004 Act for land acquired earlier. He seeks a stay on the Supreme Court’s Rs 3,400 crore order favoring Mysore royals.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India earlier (May 22) told the Karnataka government that it must immediately give Rs 3,400 crore worth of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to the Mysore royal family. This order comes as compensation for the 15 acres of land that were taken from the Palace Grounds area in Bengaluru for widening roads and public development.
This land originally belonged to the Mysore royal family, and they have been fighting a long legal battle to get fair compensation after the government acquired it. Now, the highest court in the country has ruled that the TDR benefits must go to the royal family.
However, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is representing one of the parties, today (May 26) raised serious legal questions about the decision and its implications.
He said,
“We are the legal owners of this land. How can TDR be granted when the 2004 Act doesn’t even apply here? We’ve challenged the Supreme Court’s order and are seeking a stay. Legally, can a law be applied retrospectively?”
According to Sibal, the law regarding TDR was made in 2004, but the land was taken before that. So, he argued that this law should not be applied to an old case. He also expressed concern about how such a decision could affect legal principles in future cases.
In response, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai asked an important legal question himself.
He said,
“Can we really sit in appeal over a decision made by a coordinate bench?”
This means that one group of Supreme Court judges usually does not question or change the decisions of another group of judges from the same court level.
Sibal strongly agreed with this point and added,
“Exactly! And how can a contempt plea lead to amending a court’s own judgment?”
This shows that he believes a contempt of court petition should not be used to change or adjust a past judgment of the court.
Finally, Chief Justice Gavai decided that the court would continue discussing this matter further and said,
“List this for tomorrow.”
So, this case is still ongoing, and the next hearing will take place soon. The decision will be important for future cases about land rights, compensation, and how laws can be applied across different periods.
BACKGROUND
In a landmark ruling with far-reaching political and legal consequences, the Supreme Court on May 22 ordered the Karnataka government to immediately hand over Rs 3,400 crore worth of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to the Mysore royal family as compensation for over 15 acres of land acquired from the iconic Palace Grounds for road expansion in Bengaluru.
The verdict marks a decisive victory for the legal heirs of the erstwhile Wodeyar dynasty after decades of dispute and simultaneously delivers a stinging rebuke to the state government’s recent legislative maneuvers that critics claim was aimed at denying the royal family its lawful dues.
The ruling was passed by a bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and Arvind Kumar, who had earlier instructed the Karnataka government to deposit the TDR with the court. The state complied, placing TDR certificates valued at Rs 3,400 crore in the Supreme Court’s custody, but had filed an interim plea urging the court not to release them to the royal family.
That request was emphatically dismissed, with the court making it clear that legal obligations under the Karnataka Stamp Act and past judgments must be honoured. The land in question-15.36 acres-was taken for the widening of Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road, both arterial routes that pass through the historically significant Palace Grounds.
The court, in its December order, had explicitly stated that compensation must be calculated using the guideline value of surrounding areas, as per Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act. This effectively nullified the government’s argument that the earlier Rs 11 crore compensation paid in 1996 sufficed.
Government’s Ordinance Tactics Backfire
In a controversial move, the Karnataka government had recently introduced the Bengaluru Palace (Land Acquisition and Control) Amendment Bill, 2025, which was swiftly approved by Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot. The bill aimed to retain government control over Palace Grounds and retroactively validate its 1996 compensation payout-essentially limiting further financial liability.
Legal experts, however, pointed out that the move appeared tailor-made to undermine the Supreme Court’s directions and deny the royal family their rightful TDR entitlement.
“This bill is not only a legislative overreach but a direct assault on the spirit of judicial independence,”
-a senior legal analyst told media.
The amendment stated that if compensation had already been paid in accordance with any prior order or judgment, it need not be paid again-a provision that clearly aimed to cap the compensation at the original Rs 11 crore, despite the current market valuation running into thousands of crores.
The Supreme Court, while reserving its final verdict on the legality of the bill, made it clear that existing judicial orders would prevail until overturned by a constitutional bench or future review.
Palace Grounds: A Contentious Legacy
Covering over 472 acres and 16 guntas, the Palace Grounds have long been a source of legal friction between the state and the descendants of the Wodeyar family. While the area remains an iconic cultural landmark, successive governments have eyed it for infrastructural expansion and public events, often sidelining the property’s original custodians.
In this instance, more than 15 acres were acquired for infrastructure development without due and fair compensation, prompting the royal family to move contempt petitions in the Supreme Court. The court sided with the petitioners, acknowledging both the legality of their claim and the state’s attempt to circumvent it.
“This is a classic case of trying to rewrite history to escape responsibility,”
-said R. Ashoka, Leader of the Opposition.
“The government has not only disrespected a historic institution like the Wodeyar family, but has also undermined the Supreme Court’s authority.”
Even within legal circles, the government’s defence is being viewed with scepticism.
“You cannot use legislation to erase financial obligations arising from court judgments,”
-said a senior advocate.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
