Indrakashi Devi vs The State Of Karnataka

2024 INSC 957 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 688 OF 2021 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3310 OF 1997

CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR. …PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

P. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 578 OF 2022 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3305 OF 1997

CHAMUNDI HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED …PETITIONER (S)

VERSUS

VANDITA SHARMA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 716 OF 2023 IN Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3307 OF 1997 Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2024.12.10 WITH 18:13:46 IST Reason: INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 39734 OF 2023

1 M.L. VARCHUSVIN S.S. RAJE URS AND ANR. …PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

VANDITA SHARMA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 555 OF 2024 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3310 OF 1997

CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR. …PETITIONER (S)

VERSUS

RAJNEESH GOEL AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 556 OF 2024 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3309 OF 1997

INDRAKSHI DEVI …PETITIONER (S) VERSUS

RAJNEESH GOEL AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

2 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 585 OF 2024 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3306 OF 1997

KAMAKSHI DEVI AVARU …PETITIONER(S) VERSUS

RAJNEESH GOEL AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Alleging wilful disobedience of the Orders dated 21.11.2014,

17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court, these contempt petitions

have been filed for punishing the respondents for their alleged contumacious

act.

1.1 For purposes of convenience the contempt petitions which have been

filed with details appended thereto are tabulated herein below:

SERIAL CONTEMPT COMPLAINANT/S RESPONDENT/S ORDER ALLEGED TO NO. PETITION No. HAVE BEEN FILED 1 CP. No. 688 of Chaduranga Shri P. Ravi Order dt. 21.11.2014 2021 in C.A. NO. Kanthraj Urs Kumar and passed in I.A. No. 13 of 3309 -3310 /1997 and Anr. Ors. 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.

2 CP. No. 578/2022 Chamundi Smt. Vandita i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 in C.A. No. 3305 Hotel Private Sharma and passed in I.A. No. 13 of of 1997 Limited Ors.

3 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. iii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in CP No. 578 of 2022. 3 CP. No. 716 of M.L Smt Vandita i. Order dt. 21.11.2014 2023 in C.A. No. Varchusvin Sharma and passed in I.A. No. 13 of 3307 of 1997 S.S. Raje Urs. Ors. 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. 4 CP. No. 555 of Chaduranga Dr. Rajneesh i.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in 2024 in C.A. No. Kanthraj Urs Goel and Ors. I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in 3310 of 1997 and and Anr. C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. C.P. 688 of 2021 ii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in CP No. 578 of 2022. 5 CP. No. 556 of Smt. Indrakshi Rajneesh Goel i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 2024 in C.A. No. Devi and Ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of 3309 of 1997 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. 6 C.P No. 585 of Kamakshi Rajneesh Goel i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 2024 in C.A. No. Devi Avaru and ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of 3306 of 1997 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.

4

The aforestated analogous petitions are taken up together and disposed of

by this Common Order as they involve facts in common.

1.2 The petitioners in the aforestated contempt petitions have contended

that the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, including the order dated

19.03.2024 is clear and explicit whereunder the respondent authorities have

been directed by this Court to issue TDR as per TDR Rules in favour of the

respective land owners whose land has been acquired for widening of Bellary

and Jayamahal Roads and yet respondents have failed to do so and thereby

they have wilfully disobeyed the directions and orders passed by this Court.

It is also contended that though Bengaluru Development Authority (for short

BDA) and Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (for short BBMP) on the one

hand were taking steps to issue TDR by calling for information from the

petitioners, on the other hand Government of Karnataka passed an Order on

23.02.2021 expressing its difficulty to implement the orders of this Court on

the ground of financial hardship being caused to exchequer which itself is

clear wilful disobedience. It is also contended that State has taken the benefit

flowing from the order dated 21.11.2014 and utilized the land owned by

petitioners to widen the roads and has issued the Government Order dated

08.12.2022 after dismissal of the IA for modification on 17.05.2022, which

amounts to over reaching the orders of this Court. It is also contended that the

5 positive direction issued by this Court to the respondents to issue TDR as per

TDR rules in favour of complainants had not been complied which not only

undermine the dignity of this Court but also the authority of this Court. It is

further contended that market value determined for the subject land for issuing

TDR by no stretch of imagination can be the market value prescribed under

the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the

Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights)

Rules, 2016. It is also submitted that contemnors in the IA No.98276 of 2021

had filed for modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 wherein they have

clearly admitted that in the event of TDR is to be issued to the extent of 15

acres 39 guntas as per the orders of this Court which is the extent of land

acquired by the BBMP for widening of the roads, it would result in issuance

of TDR valued at Rs.1,396 crores as per TDR rules and yet determined the

value under the notices dated 10.06.2024 diametrically opposite to the stand

already taken by them. Hence, contending that respondents are acting in

violation of the orders of this Court wilfully and as such they are liable to be

proceeded with and punished for wilful disobedience of the order dated

21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.

1.3 On being notified contesting respondents have filed affidavits of

compliance in the respective petitions. Shri Jairam N., Commissioner, BDA

6 has stated that BBMP had proposed to grant Development Rights Certificate

(DRC/TDR) in lieu of utilisation of Bengaluru Palace ground for “widening

of Bellary road from BDA junction to Mekhri Circle” and in this regard the

BBMP has issued the provisional acceptance order dated 07.06.2024 and in

response to the recommendations by the BBMP, the BDA has approved the

issuance of DRC/TDR on 10.06.2024 whereunder the details of the DRC has

been enumerated. It is further contended that same is in compliance with the

order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024. It is further stated that as

per the recommendations of the BBMP, the petitioners have been served

notice dated 10.06.2024 by BDA calling upon them to hand over the physical

possession of the lands to the officials of BBMP, apart from informing them

to hand over personal bonds simultaneously, to enable them to collect DRC.

It is also stated that as indicated in the notice the officials of BBMP and BDA

were present at Bengaluru Palace grounds on the appointed date and time to

take possession of the lands, but petitioners had failed to appear and as such a

joint mazar was drawn on 18.06.2024 by noting physical possession of the

land was not taken and personal bonds was not furnished by the petitioners.

1.4 It is further stated that one more opportunity was extended to the

petitioners to collect the approved DRC and a notice dated 26.06.2024 was

7 issued in this regard and again the petitioners had failed to appear on the

appointed place and time for handing over possession of the land. It is stated

that possession of the subject land was taken on 01.07.2024 and respective

authorities though were ready to handover DRC to the petitioners, they failed

to appear and receive the same. Hence, it is contended that at no point of time

the said respondent had any intention to wilfully disobey the orders of this

Court and have tendered unconditional apology for the delay that has

occasioned in implementing the orders of this Court. Contending that delay

was neither deliberate or intentional they have prayed for dismissal of the

contempt petitions.

1.5 Mr. Tushar Giri Nath, Chief Commissioner, BBMP has filed an

affidavit of compliance dated 17.03.2024 stating thereunder that in

compliance of the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, the Government of

Karnataka through decision of Cabinet decided on 14.03.2024 to utilise 15

acres 39 guntas namely the subject land for road widening and also decided to

issue the TDR as per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961

and the TDR Rules and in furtherance of the same Government Order dated

15.03.2024 came to be issued. It is further stated that as per the said

Government Order the BBMP would implement the orders of this Court by

issuance of TDR/ DRC as per rules. It is further stated that out of 15 acres 39 8 guntas only an extent of 1,217.41 sq. meter has been actually utilised for the

road widening purposes and the entire land would be utilised after issuance of

DRC/TDR as per rules. It is further stated that at no point of time the

respondent had any intention to wilfully disobey the orders of this Court and

have tendered unconditional apology for the delay in implementing the orders

of this Court.

1.6 Sri Jairam N., Commissioner, BDA had initially filed counter affidavit

on 18.03.2024 in contempt petition No. 688 of 2021 contending thereunder

that on the basis of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 passed by this

Court, the Government of Karnataka had taken a decision on 14.03.2024 to

utilise 15 acres 39 guntas namely subject land for road widening subject to

grant of DRC/TDR and as such Government Order dated 15.03.2024 came to

be issued. It is further submitted that BDA is the planning authority as per the

KTP Act and said authority would issue Development Rights Certificate-DRC

after receiving recommendation by the public authority. It is further stated that

at no point of time the contemnor had any intention to wilfully disobey the

orders passed by this Court.

1.7 The Chief Commissioner of BBMP has filed further affidavit on

28.07.2024 in contempt petition No. 555-556 of 2024 narrating the sequential

9 events culminating in the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 apart from

narrating the purported details about issuance of DRC/ TDR to the claimants.

The sum and substance of the narration is pursuant to the orders passed by this

Court, notices had been issued to the petitioners and except Smt. Deepamalini

Devi none of the petitioners had turned up to hand over physical possession

of 15 acres 17.5 guntas of land, as a result thereof another notice dated

26.06.2024 came to be issued and on the appointed date 01.07.2024 none had

appeared and after identifying the subject land i.e. 15 acres 17.5 guntas by

metes and bonds by the survey wing of the revenue department possession of

subject land was taken by BBMP on 01.07.2024. In paragraph 5 of the said

affidavit the sequential events leading to the issuance of DRC/TDR has been

narrated and the summary of the same is to the effect that the BDA was the

authority to issue/deal with Form No.3 and thereupon DRC/TDR and after the

amendment to the KTCP Act in 2021 the BBMP public authority became the

authority to issue/deal with form No.1 and 3 and after the amendment the

matter stood transferred to BBMP from BDA for further action as per the

notification dated 23.09.2022 and accordingly notice came to be issued to the

claimants on 21.03.2024. It is also stated that there were exchange of

correspondence between the BDA and the claimants whereunder it is clearly

admitted that 15 acres 17.05 guntas is the land utilised/to be utilised for road

10 widening purposes based on the survey settlement dated 22.04.2024. It is

further stated that the Deputy Commissioner (TDR) BBMP vide order dated

22.04.2024 after considering all the claims and objections determined and

finalised the extent of land of various claimants. It is further stated that on the

basis of the request of BBMP the Government passed an order dated

24.05.2024 permitting BBMP to utilise the land ad measuring 15 acres 17.5

guntas for road widening and determined the value of the land at Rs. 11 crores

for the entire land covered under the acquisition namely under BPAT and

determined the compensation of subject land in proportion to the same value

for issuance of DRC/TDR to be issued to the claimants. The Deputy

Commissioner (TDR) after considering the objections raised to the order dated

24.05.2024 while rejecting the objections of the claimants/petitioners by order

dated 06.06.2024 held the “market value” of the subject land cannot be beyond

2 lakhs and as such applied the said value for issuance of TDR. In other words,

factor taken into consideration for determining the market value of the subject

land is on the premise that land had stood vested with the State Government

under the BPAT whereunder the total value of the entire land has been

computed at Rs.11 crores namely for 472 acres 16 guntas and proportionate

value is to be considered for the subject land which is the part of the larger

extent and as such justifying the order dated 06.06.2024, the notices were

11 issued to the petitioners/claimants to accept the DRC/TDR as per value

determined thereunder and contending orders of this Court had been complied

they have sought for contempt proceedings being dropped or petitions being

dismissed.

1.8 The complainant/petitioner in contempt petition No.716 of 2023 has

filed a rejoinder/affidavit dated 08.07.2024 reiterating the contentions raised

in the contempt petitions and also contending the development that have taken

place pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2024 and has highlighted the issue

regarding reduction of the extent of land and determination of the market

value at Rs. 120.68 per sq. meter as against the guidance value of Rs. 2,83,500

(for Bellary Road) and 2,04,000 (for Jay Mahal Road) per sq. metre as fixed

under Section 45-B of The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. It is also contended

that DRC/TDR which was forwarded through post and handed over to the

minor daughter of the first petitioner would not absolve the liability of the

respondents contemnors to comply with the orders of this Court in substance.

1.9 The petitioner in contempt petition No.578 of 2022 has also filed a

rejoinder affidavit in response to counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3

whereunder it has been contended that at all relevant point of time and in

various forum the ownership rights over the subject land has been declared to

12 be that of the petitioner and as such there is no dispute with regard to the

ownership of the land and none of the legal heirs of Late Shri SDN Wadiyar

could object to it either. Contending that the official respondents have failed

to comply with the order dated 21.11.2014 the petitioner have sought for

appropriate action being taken against the respondents.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING:

Heard the arguments of the Learned Senior Advocates assisted by the Learned

Advocates for appearing parties, perused the entire case papers and having

bestowed our careful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar,

we are of the view that following point would arise for our consideration

“Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors?”

PREFACE:

1.10 In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that

disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. It means knowingly-intentional,

conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences

flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or

unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary

or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows

13 what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too well settled that if two

interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt

proceeding would not be maintainable.

1.11 The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree

or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided

for. The paramount consideration is given to maintain court’s dignity and

majesty of law. In Sudhir Vasudeva Vs. George Ravishekeran1 this Court has

observed that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders in relation to

which contempt has been alleged. That the Court hearing a contempt petition

ought to restrict the scope of its enquiry to such directions which are explicit

in the judgment or orders of which contempt has been alleged.

1.12 The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of

this Court. What would be relevant is the “wilful disobedience”. Hence,

knowledge of having acted in disregard to an order is sine qua non for being

proceeded with if there is a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the

jurisdiction can be clutched.

1

(2014) 3 SCC 373

14 1.13 Having adumbrated position of law enumerated by this Court we

proceed to deal with the alleged acts of contempt said to have been committed

by the contemnors in the instant petitions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The background in which the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022

came to be passed can be succinctly narrated as under:

Undisputedly the land measuring 15 acres and 39 guntas (hereinafter referred

to as ‘subject land’) and the adjoining properties collectively measuring 456

acres belonged to the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore. The legal heirs of

deceased Maharaja of Mysore amongst others and/or claiming through them

are before this Court alleging wilful disobedience of the aforestated orders.

3. The State enacted the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act

1996 (herein after referred to as “BPAT” Act) to acquire the Bangalore Palace

and adjacent land including all the buildings around on the grounds

enumerated therein. The constitutional validity of the same was

unsuccessfully challenged by the legal heirs of Maharaja of Mysore before the

High Court of Karnataka and an ad interim order of Stay of the operation of

the Act came to be passed by the High Court on 10.12.1996. On conclusion of

hearing writ petitions came to be dismissed vide Order dated 31.03.1997 and

15 four weeks’ time was granted to the writ petitioners to file an appeal before

this Court and interim order granted on 10.12.1996 which was in operation

till disposal of the writ petitions came to be continued till then. Subsequently,

appeals came to be filed, and this Court by Order dated 22.04.1997 granted

stay of dispossession and the Special Leave Petitions came to be admitted on

30.04.1997 and order of status quo came to be passed pending disposal of the

appeals. The said appeals are pending before this Court.

4. In Civil Appeal No. 3303 of 1997, an interlocutory application came

to be filed by the State of Karnataka seeking permission of this Court to widen

the Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road and to complete the same by utilising

15 acres and 39 guntas of the Bengaluru Palace ground; and, to pay

compensation to the above land as per the calculation made in the original

award. Appellants in various appeals virtually conceded to the needs of the

State to widen the road and expressed their willingness to accept the proposal

of BBMP made in its letter dated 26.12.2009, whereunder BBMP had agreed

to issue TDR for the extent of land acquired as per the Karnataka Town and

Country Planning Act and the TDR guidelines, subject to final decision of this

Court. Having regard to the fact that the State did not grant its approval to the

proposal mooted by the BBMP and had instead offered to pay compensation

as per the rates relevant at the time of passing of the order, this Court disposed 16 of the said application by order dated 21.11.2014 and permitted the road

widening subject to the condition that the appellants would be given the TDR

as per TDR Rules. Order dated 21.11.2014 reads:

“10. In the above circumstances, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, including learned counsel for the parties in all the connected appeals, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, and keeping in mind the necessity of widening of the road, and the public interest, we think it just and proper to allow I.A. No. 13 of 2011 subject to condition that the appellants in the present appeal and the connected appeals shall be given TDR for widening of the road as per TDR Rules.” (Emphasis Supplied by us)

5. The respondent-authorities were required to implicitly implement the

aforesaid order or in other words issue TDR as per the extant TDR rules. This

Court in Rita Markanday v/s Surjit Singh Arora2 has taken the view that even

if the parties have not filed an undertaking before the Court, but if the Court

is induced to sanction a particular course of action or inaction on the basis of

the representation of such a party and the Court ultimately finds that the party

never intended to act on such representation or such representation was false

then the party would be guilty of committing contempt of court. In fact, this

Court having heard the parties on merits and taking into consideration the

totality of circumstances into consideration had passed a positive direction to

2 (1996) 6 SCC 14

17 the respondents to issue TDR a per TDR Rules. However, under the guise of

the said order requires to be modified, a valiant attempt was made by the State

after Seven (7) years by filing an interlocutory application on 12.08.2021 in

IA No.98276 of 2021 seeking modification of the order dated 21.11.2014

wherein it was specifically prayed that the order dated 21.11.2014 may be

clarified or modified, with a further prayer to direct the instrumentalities of

the State to pay compensation as per the calculation made in the original award

in the Act of 1996 in similar terms of the order of this Court dated 15.02.1999

passed in IA No.2.

5.1 Aforesaid application came to be rejected after adjudication vide order

dated 17.05.2022 whereunder this Court reiterated its earlier order dated

21.11.2014 and observed there was no reason to modify the said order. The

Order dated 17.05.2022 reads:

“We have noticed from the order dated 21.11.2014 that this court has allowed the I.A. No. 13 of 2011 filed by the applicant subject to the condition that the appellants will be given TDR for widening of the road as per the TDR Rules. We do not see any reason to modify the said order. It is for the applicant(s) to take action in terms of the order dated 21.11.2014. The I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 stands rejected.” (emphasis supplied by us)

18 5.2 This Court in Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang3, has held that

contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in every case where the conduct of a

contemnor is such as would interfere with the due course of justice.

5.3 This Court exercising contempt jurisdiction would not enter into

question which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order,

violation of which is complained by the applicant. This Court will consider

whether the direction issued in the judgment or order is complied in true sense

or in its letter and spirit and would not embark upon the journey of examining

as to what the judgment or order should have contained. The primary concern

would be as to whether there has been deliberate default or if there is any

ambiguity in the directions issued therein, in which event it would be better to

direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for

clarification instead of clutching the contempt jurisdiction. A plain reading of

the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 supra would indicate that

direction issued to the respondents is to the effect that TDR had to be issued

as per TDR rules. There was no ambiguity or vagueness in the said orders. It

is also not the case of the contemnors that any doubt being there in the said

orders.

3 (2021) 15 SCC 338

19 5.4 However, on the basis of an assumed doubt having arisen in the mind

of the State that too after seven years of the passing of the order (dated

21.11.2014) and to stave off the impending contempt proceedings, an

Interlocutory Application I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 referred to supra came to be

filed for modification of the said order dated 21.11.2014 primarily on the

ground of financial hardship amongst other grounds, which came to be

rejected.

5.5 It is apt and appropriate to note at this juncture itself that a specific

plea came to be raised by the State in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid application,

that if the TDR certificate is issued as per the order dated 21.11.2014 to the

extent of 15 acres 39 guntas the notional value of the same would be Rs.1,396

crores. At the cost of burdening this order the relevant plea raised by the

respondent in that regard is extracted herein below:

“9. The Respondents/Applicant-State of Karnataka respectfully submits that area of land sought to be acquired vide I.A. No. 13/2011 is an extent of 15 acres 39 guntas. If the compensation was required to be paid in terms of the Award passed under the Act of 1996 for the extent of 15 acres 39 guntas, the compensation payable would be Rs.37,28,813. However, if the TDR certificate is to be issued for the said extent of 15 acres 39 guntas, it would result in 13,91,742 Sq. ft. additional built up area constructible in the city of Bengaluru and approximately it would be equivalent to notional value of Rs.1,396 crores. It is also relevant to note that TDR once granted is transferable. If the appellants were to be given TDR, the same may immediately be transferred by the appellants to

20 any other parties/ builders. In event of the final judgment going against the appellants, then it would not be possible to recover the value of TDR from the appellants.” (Emphasis Supplied by us)

6. On passing of the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2022 it was incumbent

upon the respondents-authorities to implement the aforesaid two orders

without a demur as they are crystal clear. However, same was conveniently

ignored or in other words the authorities seem to have gone into deep sleep at

least till 05.04.2017 on which date a notification came to be issued by BBMP

for carrying out the work of widening the road.

7. One another factor which cannot go unnoticed in the background of

affidavits filed by both the parties is, that in respect of the subject property,

Writ Petitions in Public Interest had also been filed seeking widening of

Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road before the High Court of Karnataka

wherein several orders came to be passed by referring to the orders passed by

this Court referred to supra, of which contempt is alleged. Hence, we deem it

proper to refer to the order dated 07.09.2016 passed in W.P. No. 42927 of 2015

which would have direct bearing on the present proceedings and it reads:

“We, therefore, direct the State Government to grant necessary clearance to the BBMP for widening the road and issue TDR certificates to the land owners in terms of the Order of the Supreme Court of India as per the existing TDR rules. We trust and hope that the widening of the road will be completed within a year.”

21 (Emphasis supplied by us)

8. For complying the aforesaid direction an attempt was made to issue

notification dated 05.04.2017 namely to carry out the widening of Jayamahal

Road from Mekhri Circle up to Cantonment Railway Station and Bellary Road

from BDA Junction to Mekhri Circle. After two (2) years i.e., on 17.07.2019,

the State Government issued a Government Order permitting BBMP to issue

TDR to the concerned land owners. Hence, a communication dated

29.08.2019 was addressed by the complainants to the Commissioner BBMP

seeking to expedite the process of issuance of TDR and documents in support

of their claim were also forwarded. However, TDR’s were not issued for no

reason at all. Thus, from 21.11.2014 till 17.07.2019 there was absolute silence

on the part of contemnors and there is not even a whisper in the affidavits filed

by the respondents in this regard viz., as to the reason for non-implementation

of the Order dated 21.11.2014. Knowing fully, the consequences of non-

implementing the orders of this Court, yet respondents consciously ignored to

comply with the directions issued by this Court. After four (4) years

notification came to be issued on 05.04.2017 to widen the road. Again,

respondents went into deep slumber for two (2) years i.e., till 17.07.2019 date

of government order issued resolving to issue TDR in favour of landowners.

Silence on the part of the contemnors from 05.04.2017 to 17.07.2019 has to

22 be termed as deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing

therefrom. Thus, delay of five (5) years in implementation of the Order dated

21.11.2014 till 17.07.2019 not only remains unexplained but also prima-facie

seems to be intentional and not bonafide or there being any genuine inability

and this is the first stage of intentional delay. This Court in Ram kishan Vs.

Tarun Bajaj & Ors4 has opined that deliberate conduct of a person means that

he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to

be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Though Government Order

dated 17.07.2019 came to be issued, that too after five (5) years after passing

of orders (direction) by this Court to issue TDR’s, yet it did not fructify. Thus,

irresistible conclusion will have to be drawn that non-implementation of the

orders of this Court was deliberate and intentional act on the part of

contemnors.

9. From the pleadings of these proceedings it would also emerge, yet

another Writ Petition No. 6585 of 2020 (PIL) had also been filed for

expediting the process for road widening and an order came to be passed by

the High Court of Karnataka on 07.01.2021 in that regard whereunder the

State Government was directed to report the compliance by implementing

4 2014 (16) SCC 204 para 12

23 with the directions contained in paragraph 10 of this Court’s Order dated

21.11.2014 and paragraph 12 of High Court Order dated 07.09.2016 passed in

Writ Petition No. 42927 of 2015 and for reporting such compliance, the State

Government was granted time till 15.02.2021. State Government was also

called upon to produce records and documents depicting grant of TDR

certificates in terms of the order of this Court as well as the order of the High

Court. However, the State Government instead of complying with the Orders

passed by this Court and the High Court and initially having made a show of

its earnestness to comply with the order, had submitted before the High Court

in Writ Petition No. 6585 of 2020 on 17.02.2021 through the learned Advocate

General that it would move this Court seeking modification of the Order dated

21.11.2014. Thus, Government Order came to be issued on 23.02.2021

wherein it has been stated that State Cabinet had decided to resile from its

earlier decisions taken on 11.07.2019 vide Subject No. C435/2019 (pursuant

to which the State Government had issued Government Order dated

17.07.2019 bearing No. MA.AA.EE.-MNY/2018 permitting issuance of

TDR) and had resolved to file an application for modification of the Order

dated 21.11.2014 and pursuant to the decision so taken, I.A. No. 98276 of

2021 came to be filed in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997 and connected appeals by the

State of Karnataka on 12.08.2021 as already noted hereinabove. The present

24 contempt petitions came to be filed on 17.08.2021 and this Court by Order

dated 03.01.2022 directed the listing of these contempt petitions along with

I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 filed for modification of the order dated 21.11.2014.

Said application came to be heard and disposed of by this Court by Order

dated 17.05.2022 by rejecting the same as already noticed herein above.

Atleast then orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 ought to have been

implemented. However, the Respondents seem to have dragged their feet and

for no justifiable reason whatsoever have not implemented the said orders.

Thus, explicitly there has been wilful disobedience of orders of this Court and

respondents having failed in their attempt to seek modification of order dated

21.11.2014 cannot take umbrage under any circumstances whatsoever for not

implementing the orders of this Court, particularly when

clarification/modification prayer was put to rest on 17.05.2022 by this Court.

10. The wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, at this stage is

manifest and for no reason whatsoever it can be construed that respondents

were under any doubt or there was lack of clarity in the orders of this Court.

Infact the order dated 21.11.2014 is clear and explicit. However, under the

guise of implementation of said order would result in grant of TDR to the

extent of Rs. 1396 crores (the value of which is in serious dispute)

modification was sought and said attempt made after Seven (7) years had also 25 failed. This Court in the matter of All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v/s

Raghabendra Singh and Others5 has taken a view that disobedience in a

particular case would be continued as wilful based on facts and circumstances

unfolded in a given case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and

complied with, even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience

particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the Court’s order and

its implications. In the instant case respondents being aware of the

consequences of non-implementation of the order of this Court dated

21.11.2014 had sought for modification on the ground of financial hardship

and had also failed. Hence, they are estopped from feigning ignorance for not

implementing the orders of this Court or not being aware of the consequences

of its implementations.

11. In the Writ Petition No. 6585 of 2020 aforestated which was pending

before the High Court of Karnataka, the State Government dragged its feet by

taking adjournment after adjournment on one pretext or the other and had

projected a picture of its earnestness to implement the orders of this Court,

though parallelly it had resiled from its earlier order dated 17.07.2019 by

issuance of Government Order dated 23.02.2021 and later filed I.A. No. 98276

5 (2007) 11 SCC 374

26 of 2021 on 12.08.2021 for modification of Order dated 21.11.2014 which

ended in its dismissal also on 17.05.2022. It would be apposite to note that by

Government Order No. UDD 269 MNY 2018 dated 08.12.2022 it was

resolved to drop the proposal for widening of the roads itself and as such

BBMP withdrew the proposal made to the State Government on 30.03.2009

in this regard which came to be accepted by Government Order dated

08.12.2022. Strangely and curiously it may be noted that the BBMP took a

contrary stand before the High Court in the pending Writ Petition No.6585 of

2020 by filing affidavits which reflected about the progress of the steps taken

by BBMP to widen the road or in other words, State and its authorities or

instrumentalities were blowing hot and cold. On the one hand State was

depicting a picture before the High Court of implementing the Orders of this

Court and simultaneously State and its authorities were filing application for

modification of the order passed in 2014 and parallelly assuring the High

Court that it was keen on implementing the orders of this Court, though it was

postponing the implementation and dragging its feet on one pretext or the

other and eventually shelved the proposal to widen the road, though

substantial progress had been made to widen the road for which purpose

possession of land had also been taken.

27

12. Turning our attention to the core issue on hand namely as to whether

there has been compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 by

the respondents, we will have to answer it in the negative and also further hold

that there has been wilful disobedience, for the reasons assigned hereinbelow:

“(i). In compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 a communication came to be issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner Land Acquisition and TDR BBMP requesting the applicants to provide an indemnity bond following which the relinquishment deed would be executed and registered and thereafter TDR would be issued, yet same was not issued though land owners complied with the demand made by BBMP;

(ii). The State Government though passed a Government Order No. ma.aa.ee./269/MNY/2018 dated 17.07.2019 permitting issuance of TDR yet, same was not issued;

(iii).Though a communication was addressed by the State Government to the Commissioner BBMP on 29.08.2019 to expedite the process of issuance of TDR yet, TDR was not issued;”

13. The above sequential events would clearly reflect that the State

Government was projecting before this Court of its bona fides to implement

the Orders of this Court and having failed in its attempt to seek modification

of the Order dated 21.11.2014 on account of application for modification

having been dismissed on 17.05.2022, yet during the interregnum arrived at a

conclusion that the implementation of the Order of this Court would be neigh

impossible and vide Government Order No. UDD269MNY2018 (Part-4)

dated 23.02.2021 which was pursuant to the Cabinet decision taken on 28 18.02.2021 vide subject No.C.82/21 the State had dropped the proposal to

widen the road and thereby had failed to comply with the orders of this Court.

14. On present contempt petitions being filed in 2022 an attempt has been

made by the authorities to project a picture as though all efforts were made to

implement the orders of the Court. Two stages in which there has been wilful

disobedience of the orders of this Court are:

FIRST STAGE

i.After the order was passed on 21.11.2014 no steps were taken to implement the said order in its letter and spirit which ought to have been at least till 2017 i.e., issuance of notification dated 05.04.2017 for carrying out widening of roads;

ii. Though State Government issued order on 17.07.2019 permitting BBMP to issue TDR to the concerned land owners, yet TDR was not issued despite all demands of BBMP were complied by land owners:

iii. From the date of order dated 21.11.2014 till an application namely IA No. 798276 of 2021 was filed for modification, the saga of pushing the file from table to table and keeping the same idle for a long period and conveniently ignoring the order of this Court by not implementing the same in its true spirit had continued for years or atleast till 17.07.2019;

SECOND STAGE

iv.After the order dated 17.05.2022 came to be passed rejecting the application for modification/ clarification yet the State and its authorities did not take steps to implement the orders of this Court as expected of a prudent litigant i.e., by the State which should have acted as a model litigant.

29 15. In fact, this Court by Order dated 19.03.2024 with the hope that

respondents would purge in the contempt by implementing the same in its

letter & spirit had directed compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and

17.05.2022. However, an additional condition was imposed or in other words

orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 was tweaked by this Court. The

direction so issued by this Court on 19.03.2024 reads:

“2. After some hearing, it is clear that the State shall issue necessary TDR as directed by this Court on 21.11.2014 and on 17.05.2022. Taking note of the submissions of the learned Advocate General, we direct compliance within a period of eight weeks from today.” “3. Order dated 2 1.11.2014 does not specifically enable sale or transfer of the TDR, but directs grant of TDR as per Rules. To secure interests of all parties pending disposal of the Civil Appeals, we direct the recipient of the TDR to undertake return of the consideration received upon any sale or transfer of the TDR in the event the Civil Appeal(s) before Supreme Court are dismissed. An affidavit of Undertaking to this effect in the nature of personal bond(s) shall be furnished by the recipient of the TDR to the State before the sale or transfer of the TDR. We have not expressed any opinion with regard to inter se dispute between the parties.”

16. A valiant attempt has been made by the contemnors to contend that

orders of this Court has been complied by passing of the order dated

15.03.2024 and issuance of consequential notices and Government Orders.

In the notices issued on 10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the authorities seems to

be projecting a picture that the possession of the subject land has not been

30 delivered and this is nothing but suppressing the true facts and making a false

statement before this Court namely suppressio veri suggestio falsi. We say so

for the simple reason that in the notices referred to hereinabove the

respondents are attempting to give a picture as though possession of the land

in question has not been taken, whereas in the Government Order dated

08.12.2022, it has been specifically mentioned that a sum of Rs. 56 crores has

been provided for widening of the Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road and a

Government Order No. UDD 56 MNY 2020 dated 04.03.2020 in the form of

tender is handed over to M/s JMC Organization by issuance of a work order.

The said Government order would also indicate that the road project is in

progress. In fact, in the affidavit filed through Additional Chief Secretary Shri

Rakesh Singh, it has been stated in paragraph 13 that the work is almost

complete from Mekhri Circle to Jayamahal and because of the untimely rain,

the completion got delayed.

17. In Writ Petition No.6585 of 2020, an affidavit dated 20.01.2023 came

to be filed by BBMP through Smt. Priyadarshini, Executive Engineer, Road

Infrastructure (East) BBMP, which came to be recorded by the High Court on

03.02.2023 by noticing that in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, the deponent

has made a statement that the road widening work is in progress. In fact,

photographs were also appended to the said affidavit as document No.5. It was 31 deposed in unequivocal terms that the road widening work has commenced

and same came also to be recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court

of Karnataka by observing that “it can safely be said that necessary steps are

taken by BBMP for widening of roads and the work is in progress at present”.

It was further observed by the High Court that the BBMP can certainly explore

some effective means and ways to see that that road widening work is done in

a speedy manner and is not delayed on account of lame excuses or lethargy on

the part of some officer of the BBMP or the executing agencies. Hence, BBMP

was directed to file further progress report. A further affidavit was also filed

on 13.03.2023 which came to be recorded by the Division Bench of the High

Court on 29.09.2023 whereunder it was noticed that in paragraph 3 of the said

affidavit it had been stated that the 95% of the road widening project is

completed in all respects and now there is free flow of traffic on the stretch,

particularly, with reference to the stretch on Bellary Road to Kaveri theatre

junction. The status report which was called upon to be filed by BBMP

resulted in filing further affidavit of the Executive Engineer which again came

to be recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court on 19.04.2023

whereunder it was stated that in respect of different phases of the road

widening, the project is complete to the extent of 25%, 95%, 50% and 60%

respectively.

32 17.1 We are compelled to note or make references to the aforestated orders

passed by the High Court of Karnataka, since the issue of road widening has

been the core issue, and on the one hand the State is contending possession of

the subject land was not taken or it was taken only in July 2024 and countered

by the complainants that possession was taken long back. The pleadings above

referred to would also leave no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court of

possession of these lands having been taken either by the State or BBMP and

same being in their possession since long, it is too late in the day for the State

and its instrumentalities to contend that after the issuance of notices on

10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the possession of the subject land has been taken.

It is for this reason we have held that the contemnors are guilty of supressing

the truth and suggesting falsehood.

18. A theoretical implementation would not amount to compliance. The

implementation of the order should be substantial and said order/s should

clearly reflect the intention of the authorities of its bonafides, as otherwise it

has to be necessarily held that the act of State and its officers are not bonafide

but tainted or malafide. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia- Law does not compel

a person to do the impossible (AIR 1996 SC 753) Unless an order is absolutely

impossible to be executed or carried out, the authorities cannot be heard to

33 contend that financial burden would be a hurdle to implement the orders of

this Court. If at all, there were any such hurdles, it was always open to

authorities to approach this Court to seek appropriate orders and an attempt

made in that regard had also failed. In the instant case, after having kept quiet

for a period of almost 07 years i.e., from 21.11.2014 till 12.08.2021 (till filing

of IA No.98276 of 2021), no effective steps were taken by the State and its

instrumentalities to implement the orders of this Court except exchange of

inter-departmental correspondence which is already noticed herein above.

19. The affidavits of the Commissioner of BDA and Chief Commissioner

of BBMP would reflect as though there is due compliance of the aforesaid two

Orders passed by this Court and this is not only in clear violation of the Orders

21.11.2014 but also order dated 17.05.2022 whereunder this Court in

unequivocal terms or had categorically directed the respondents’ herein to

issue TDR as per the TDR Rules and nothing short or long of it. In other

words, the TDR which was required to be issued ought to have been as per the

Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights)

Rules, 2016. This Court by order dated 19.03.2024 after hearing the matter for

some time had passed the aforesaid order.

34

20. A perusal of the same would indicate that this Court in no uncertain

terms and categorically has held that State should issue necessary TDR as

directed by this Court on 21.11,2014 and 17.05.22. In fact, specific direction

was issued that there should be compliance within eight (8) weeks. It was also

ordered that the recipient of the TDR should undertake to return the

consideration received upon sale or transfer of the TDR in the event of the

civil appeals before this Court are dismissed and called upon the complainants

to file an affidavit of undertaking to this effect in the nature of personal

bond(s) to be furnished by the recipient of the TDR to the state before the sale

or transfer of the TDR. We deem it appropriate to note at this juncture that

order dated 19.03.2024 was passed for implementing the orders dated

21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 and there was no occasion or necessity for this

Court to impose further conditions which in effect would amount to tweaking

the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022. Infact there was no such prayer

made by the State or its instrumentalities by filing appropriate applications.

Attempt made in that regard by filing I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 had already been

rejected by this Court by Order dated 17.05.2022 itself. Yet another reason

which requires to be assigned for supporting such a view, emanates from the

fact that State itself has admitted in the I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 that if TDR is

to be issued as per TDR Rules the market value will have to be determined as

35 per TDR Rules, which in effect would mean value of the land has to be

determined as per the value fixed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

Accordingly, the calculation had been made and pleaded financial hardship.

Though, while applying the market value as fixed under the Stamp Act, 1957,

60% of the value has been deducted which we are not in agreement for reasons

detailed herein below, yet, the fact remains that State itself has admitted and

adopted the value fixed under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 to fix the value of

TDR to be issued. We would hasten to add that Civil Appeals relating to

challenge of acquisition of larger area (456 acres) is still pending before the

court and sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of the State can be taken

care of at the time of passing final order. Necessarily, the issuance of TDR as

per TDR Rules would be subject to final outcome of Civil Appeals and as such

filing of an undertaking by the recipients of TDR as opined by our Order dated

19.03.2024 is not warranted. Hence, we deem it proper to delete the additional

condition imposed by this Court by order dated 19.03.2024 and making it

explicitly clear that TDR issued by the competent authority would be subject

to final orders that may be passed in Civil Appeals pending before larger bench

and this order would have no bearing on the pending appeals.

20.1 Though, initially there was resistance to the order dated 21.11.2014

and 17.05.2022, the State and its machinery seems to have understood the 36 gravity of the situation and to fall in line with the further directions issued by

this Court, has made a feeble attempt on 19.03.2024 to demonstrate before

this Court of having complied with the orders passed by this Court which is

alleged to have been wilfully disobeyed by the contemnors. After having

dragged their feet for the last 10 years and having exhausted all remedies to

stave off the orders dated 21.11.2024, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024, the

respondent authorities or contemnors have filed affidavits by stating

thereunder that orders of this Court have been complied. The affidavits dated

09.07.2024 filed by Shri Uma Shankar Additional Chief Secretary, Urban

Development Department, Government of Karnataka- Respondent No.1

would indicate that the deponent is depicting the picture of having complied

with the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 without any whisper with

regard to the order dated 19.03.2024. In fact the deponent has relied upon the

Government Order No. DPAR 68 PSR 2024 dated 24.05.2024 whereunder the

TDR for 15 acres 17.5 guntas has been resolved to be issued to the

complainants by determining the value as per the BPAT Act. The deponent

also refers to the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner

(TDR) who has again rested his oars on the Government Order dated

24.05.2024 namely determining the value of the land as per the value

determined under the BPAT Act for the entire land of 436 acres. Pursuant to

37 the said orders the TDR is said to have been forwarded to the

complainant/claimant. On this ground contemnors are seeking from being

absolved of the present proceedings or in other words seeking for contempt

proceedings being dropped and clearly admitting there has been delay for

which an unconditional apology has been tendered.

20.2 The affidavit of compliance filed by respondent No.3 is as vague,

vagueness could be. Except enclosing the order No. UDD 22 MNY 2023,

Bengaluru dated 15.03.2024 whereby it has been resolved to utilise 15 acres

39 guntas of the Bengaluru Palace for road widening subject to the grant of

TDR and undertaking that BPAT would implement the orders nothing further

revolves around this affidavit.

20.3 The compliance affidavit of Respondent No.4 namely the

Commissioner of BDA would indicate the steps taken by the said authorities

to implement the order namely issuance of notice dated 10.06.2024 and reply

given thereto by the noticee and the purported joint mahazar having been

drawn at the spot for taking possession of the subject land, nothing more turns

around.

20.4 The compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 to 6

is in same line with the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4. 38 20.5 We find from the afore-stated affidavits that the consistent stand taken

by the State from day one till date is to the effect that: (i) petitioners were not

entitled for the TDR; (ii) if at all they are entitled to, then they would be

entitled to the compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act or the value of

the land as fixed by the ULC authorities or the value of the land as determined

by the authorities determining the wealth tax; (iii) even if value is to be

determined and TDR is to be furnished the valuation of the land cannot be as

per the value fixed for the adjacent lands under Section 45B of the Karnataka

Stamp Act,1957 and the value is to be fixed as per the value of the land

determined under the BPAT Act namely 11 crores for 472 acres and

proportionately for 15 acres 39 guntas the value of the subject land has to be

determined.

21. Having dragged its feet for years in implementing the Orders of this

Court the respondents seem to have conceptualized a novel method to over-

reach the Orders of this Court and we say so for the simple reason that affidavit

of the compliance does not indicate or clearly admit that the TDR certificate

being issued is in accordance with the extant TDR Rules but it is on an

assumed value. The notice dated 10.06.2024 which was preceded by

Government Order dated 24.05.2024 issued to the petitioners reflect that

39 market value of the land acquired has been determined @ Rs.120.68/ per

square meter inclusive of interest, which notice has also been duly replied to

by the petitioners on 13.06.2024 contending valuation made is contrary to

TDR Rules. The Government Order dated 24.05.2024 being contrary to the

direction issued by this Court cannot be accepted or the value of the subject

land as determined thereunder to be correct, or the value indicated therein can

be taken as a determination as per TDR Rules and it is diametrically opposite

to the TDR Rules. We say so for reasons more than one. Firstly, the gazette

notification dated 27.09.2023 issued in exercise of power vested under Section

45B of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 by the Government of Karnataka fixing

the guidance value of the properties for the purposes of registration which has

been appended to the counter affidavit filed by the complainants would

indicate that the value of the subject property is fixed at Rs. 2,83,500 per

square meter on Bellary Road, and for Jayamahal Road it is fixed at Rs.

2,04,000 per square meter (see convenience compilation filed on 21.07.2024

at pages 248 and 249) and this value is not adopted. Secondly, the applicable

rules for issuance of TDR is known and called as Karnataka Town and

Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules 2016. Section 2(i)

defines ‘Market Value’ to mean the value determined as per the guidance

value of land in accordance with Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act,

40 1957. Thus, the TDR has to be issued as per the guidance value fixed under

the Stamp Act and it is for this precise reason the State while determining the

market value of the subject land had adopted the guidance value as specified

under the Stamp Act for purposes of calculation/determination under I.A. No.

98276 of 2021 for pleading financial hardship. The State Government cannot

now retrace its steps in this regard and determine the value of the subject

property at its whims or fancies or on any imaginary value for the purposes of

issuance of TDR. Thirdly, the market value of the property has to be

prescribed under Rule 4 of TDR Rules, which clearly mandates the “market

value” of a property to be as prescribed under Section 45B of Stamp Act, as

the basis for issuance of TDR. In fact, this Court by Orders dated 21.11.2014,

17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 in no uncertain terms has ordered or directed the

respondents to issue TDR as per TDR Rules. Fourthly, in the interlocutory

application (I.A. No. 98276 of 2021) filed for modification by the State, it has

been specifically pleaded by the State itself that “if the compensation was

required to be paid in terms of the award passed under the Act of 1996, then

for the extent of 15 acres and 39 guntas the compensation payable would be

Rs. 37,28,813. However, if the TDR certificate is to be issued as per TDR

rules for the said extent of 15 acres 39 guntas, it would result in 13,91,742 sq.

feet additional built up area constructable in the city of Bengaluru and

41 approximately it would be equivalent to notional value of Rs.1,396 crores”

after deducting 60% of the guidance value. The State specifically pleaded that

TDR once granted is transferable and it would not be possible to recover the

value of the TDR from the appellants if it is transferred to other parties/

builders, in the event of final judgment going against the appellants. In fact, it

is for this precise reason we have opined supra that orders dated 21.11.2014

and 17.05.2022 was not required to be tweaked by this Court by adding

additional conditions. Fifthly, it is to be noted that when value of adjacent and

abutting land is fixed at Rs. 2,83,500 per sq. meter and 2,04,000 per sq. meter

respectively under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the value of subject land

cannot be diminished below the said value. The State specifically sought for

modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 whereunder it was required to

issue TDR as per TDR rules and wanted to pay compensation as per the

calculation in the original award of 1996 in similar terms of the order dated

15.02.1999 passed on IA No.2 and this has been categorically turned down or

rejected by this Court by order dated 17.05.2022. For these myriad reasons

Government Order dated 24.05.2024 cannot be accepted as substantial

compliance of the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 and it

stands rejected.

42

22. In fact, the State itself has categorically admitted in its Government

Order dated 23.02.2021 the value of the TDR to be issued in favour of the

claimants would be as under:

Total area 15 Acres 36 Guntas, Total 639 Guntas 639 x 1089 = 695871 sq. ft. x 2 = 1391742 sq. feet.

It is also admitted that the gross value is Rs.2,70,000 per Sq. Meter. However,

it has determined the value as 0.4 times of the land value that is 1,08,000 per

Sq. Meter on the premise that it is to be construed as an agricultural land. This

very plea came to be raised for the modification of the order dated 21.11.2014

and it was turned down by this Court by order dated 17.05.2022 and it was

reiterated that the TDR is required to be issued as per TDR Rules namely by

adopting market value of the land. The value of the land cannot be anything

less than market value as already determined under Section 45B of the

Karnataka Stamp Act 1957. At the cost of repetition it requires to be noticed

that the State Government itself has considered the market value as per

guidance value at Rs. 2,70,000 per sq. meter fixed under Karnataka Stamp

Act, 1957 and has adopted 0.4 times of the said value to calculate the TDR for

the reason that the Bangalore Palace falls within agricultural zone which

cannot be market value under TDR Rules. No material whatsoever has been

placed by the State to depict that the subject land is to be construed as falling 43 within agricultural zone. In fact, the subject property was utilized as a private

residence of the then Maharaja of Mysore since long number of years and it

is situated in the heart of city of Bangalore. There cannot be any cavial to the

fact that TDR is required to be issued as per TDR Rules. In fact, not dwelling

upon further on this aspect, it can be safely concluded that valuation of the

subject land even according to the State was determined as per the guidance

value then prevailing but restricted it to 40% of the guidance value by treating

it as agriculture land without any basis whatsoever. The notifications issued

under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act prescribes the guidance value

and this value alone ought to have been adopted and there cannot be any

reduction or subtraction in that regard. Thus, any amount of plea raised by the

contemnors on the ground of financial hardship or otherwise would be in

contravention of the Order passed by this Court on 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022

and 19.03.2024. Hence, we are of the considered view that the State and its

instrumentalities and/or the competent authority being the BBMP is required

to issue the TDR as per the then prevailing guidance value fixed under Section

45B of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 namely 2,83,500 per sq. meter for Bellary

Road and 2,04,000 per sq. meter for Jayamahal road as indicated under the

notifications issued under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act.

44

23. Yet the fact remains that subsequent to the same the State has

calculated the value of the TDR in terms of the Order dated 22.04.2024 and

06.06.2024 as approved by the provisional acceptance order dated 07.06.2024,

the correctness of which cannot be subject matter of the present contempt

proceedings and the value of subject land as determined thereunder has not

been accepted by this Court for the reasons already indicated supra. No doubt

by way of attempting to purge in the contempt, these orders have been passed.

The State and its authorities have no doubt dragged their feet in implementing

the orders of the Court. However, there seems to be thin line of doubt which

has arisen in the mind of State and its authorities as regards the valuation and

in this direction if steps have been taken to protect the interest of the revenue

and several meetings have been held and these aspects are placed before the

State Cabinet and a decision has been taken by the State cabinet, it cannot be

construed or held that State is not willing to implement the order and

particularly in the background of several orders having been passed though

not in consonance with the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022. Hence,

we deem it proper to extend one final opportunity to report compliance within

a time frame.

45

24. Since we have opined that the State and its authorities have

intentionally dragged its feet for long number of years and having attempted

to tap all the mirage remedies and left with no other option and to stave off

these proceedings have passed the orders dated 15.03.2024, 22.04.2024,

24.05.2024 and 10.06.2024 to utilise the subject land for road widening, fixing

the extent to which each of the claimants would be entitled for compensation

and to issue the TDR on an estimate value which is not accepted by this Court,

still an opportunity to issue TDR’s as per market value as envisaged under

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 as observed hereinabove ought to be extended to

the respondents/contemnors.

25. Hence, we direct the respondent authorities to issue the TDR as per

the value noticed hereinabove in favour of the respective claimants within six

(6) weeks from today. We also make it abundantly clear that issuance of the

TDR certificates would be subject to further orders that may be passed by this

Court while disposing of the appeals which are pending before the larger

Bench and both parties are at liberty to bring this fact to the notice of the court

adjudicating the appeals. This order would also have no bearing on the

respective contentions of both the parties in pending appeals or on any other

collateral proceedings. We also make it explicitly clear that the order dated

19.03.2024 to the extent of imposing additional conditions is hereby recalled, 46 as it is diametrically opposite to the order dated 17.05.2022 and 21.11.2014.

The directions issued under Orders dated: 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 shall be

complied by the competent authority of BBMP keeping in mind the

observations made hereinabove within six (6) weeks from today and

compliance affidavit shall be filed within the said period failing which the

Commissioner, BBMP and the competent authority for issuance of TDR shall

appear in person before this Court for having failed to comply with the orders

of this Court, to enable this Court to pass further orders. On account of the

faux pas situation that has been created by the respondent authorities, we

direct that each of the contemnors shall be paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each

towards the cost of these proceedings except complainant in C.P. No. 578 of

2022.

26. In the light of the aforesaid observations contempt petition Nos.688 of

2021, 716 of 2023, 555 of 2024, 556 of 2024 and 585 of 2024 are allowed in

above terms, CP No. 578 of 2022 stands disposed of reserving liberty to the

complainants to pursue their grievance before the competent authority for

issuance of TDR on resolution of the inter se dispute and it is needless to state

that successful party would be entitled to receive the TDR as ordered by this

Court vide Order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.

47

27. All pending applications stands consigned to records.

For reporting compliance and/or appearance of the contemnors as the

case may be. List these matters on 22nd January 2025.

…..……………………J. (M.M. SUNDRESH)

…..……………………J. (ARAVIND KUMAR)

New Delhi, December 10, 2024

48