Summary
In contempt petitions by heirs of the former Maharaja of Mysore and others, the Supreme Court found that the State of Karnataka and its authorities had wilfully delayed and failed to implement orders of 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 directing grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) 'as per TDR Rules' for Bangalore Palace land used for road widening, rejected the TDR issued at a value derived from the 1996 acquisition Act, and gave a final six-week opportunity to issue TDR at the Stamp Act guidance value, recalling the extra condition added on 19.03.2024 and awarding costs.
Issues
- Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 directing issue of TDR as per the TDR Rules.
- Whether TDR issued on a land value worked out proportionately from the valuation under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 complied with the direction to issue TDR as per TDR Rules.
- Whether the additional condition of an undertaking by TDR recipients imposed on 19.03.2024 should stand.
Provisions considered
- Civil contempt (wilful disobedience of orders of the Court), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971The Court applied the requirement of wilful, deliberate and conscious disobedience, confining its inquiry to the explicit directions in the orders, and found years of unexplained inaction and attempts to avoid the orders to be wilful. (¶¶ 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 5.3, 8, 9, 10, 14)
- Rule 2(i) and Rule 4 (market value), Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules, 2016As described by the Court, 'market value' for TDR means the guidance value under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and Rule 4 makes that the basis for issuing TDR; TDR 'as per TDR Rules' therefore had to follow the guidance value. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22)
- Section 45B, Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957The guidance values notified under this section for Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road were held to be the minimum value for the TDR, with no deduction on the unsupported footing that the land was agricultural. (¶¶ 21, 22, 25)
Held
- Contempt requires wilful disobedience, meaning knowing, intentional and deliberate conduct, not casual, accidental, bona fide or genuinely impossible non-compliance; where two interpretations are possible and the conduct is not contumacious, contempt does not lie, and the contempt court must not go beyond the explicit directions in the order. (¶¶ 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 5.3)
- The orders of 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 unambiguously directed TDR as per TDR Rules; the State's years of inaction, its later resiling from its own decision to issue TDR, its failed modification application on grounds of financial hardship, and its inconsistent stands before the High Court in the road-widening PIL showed wilful disobedience in two stages. (¶¶ 5.3, 5.4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14)
- Notices suggesting that possession of the land had been taken only in 2024 suppressed the truth, since the State's own orders and its affidavits before the High Court showed the road-widening work was well advanced on the land long before. (¶¶ 16, 17, 17.1)
- Compliance on paper is not compliance; unless an order is truly impossible to perform, financial burden is no excuse, and the remedy was to seek modification, which had already been refused. (¶ 18)
- TDR as per the 2016 Rules must be based on the guidance value notified under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which the State itself had used when pleading hardship; the Government Order of 24.05.2024, valuing the land proportionately from the acquisition-Act valuation, and the reduction of the guidance value by treating palace land in the heart of the city as agricultural without any material, were not compliance. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- The additional condition imposed on 19.03.2024, requiring TDR recipients to undertake to refund sale consideration if the pending civil appeals failed, went beyond the earlier orders and was recalled; instead, TDR issued would be subject to the outcome of the civil appeals pending before a larger Bench. (¶¶ 15, 20, 25)
- Since the State had eventually taken steps, including Cabinet decisions, to purge the contempt, though not in conformity with the orders, a final opportunity was given to issue TDR at the guidance values of Rs. 2,83,500 per sq. m. (Bellary Road) and Rs. 2,04,000 per sq. m. (Jayamahal Road). (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
Result
Contempt petitions 688/2021, 716/2023, 555/2024, 556/2024 and 585/2024 allowed in terms of directions: BBMP's competent authority to issue TDR at the stated guidance values within six weeks and file compliance affidavits, failing which the Commissioner, BBMP and the TDR authority must appear in person; TDR subject to the pending civil appeals; condition imposed on 19.03.2024 recalled; Rs. 1 lakh costs to each complainant except in C.P. 578/2022, which was disposed of with liberty after resolution of the inter se dispute; listed on 22.01.2025.