State & Its Officials Used All Might To Stifle Orders: Supreme Court Orders Handing Over TDRs & DRCs Already Deposited By State To Complainants
The Apex Court has directed that the TDRs/ DRCs already deposited by the State be handed over to the respective complainants or their authorised representative by the Registry.
Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Supreme Court
In a case pertaining to the acquisition of 472 acres of land under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, where orders had already been passed for reissuance of DRCs/ TDRs, the Supreme Court has observed that the State and its officials had used all its might to stifle the orders and had made a show of having complied with the order by depositing the incorrect and improper DRCs / TDRs.
The Apex Court has now directed that the TDRs / DRCs already deposited by the State be handed over to the respective complainants or their authorized representative by the Registry forthwith on affidavits of undertaking.
The Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar said, “Be that as it may, the State and its officials having used all its might to stifle the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, passed by this Court and having made a show of having complied with the order by depositing the incorrect and improper DRC’s / TDR’s, which was not in due compliance of orders of this Court and this Court not being in agreement with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, on 20.03.2025 on behalf of contemnors…”
Factual Background
The contempt petitions had been filed for alleged willful disobedience of three orders. The Apex Court, by a judgment dated December 10, 2024, after taking note of the purported compliance affidavits, whereunder the DRCs/TDRs for the subject land had been resolved to be issued by adopting the value as determined under the BPAT Act, had rejected the same and had issued clear directions to re-issue the DRCs/ TDRs. The matter had been dragging on for more than 10 years. The contemnors were extended an olive branch to purge the contempt and were called upon to file a compliance report within 6 weeks.
It was made clear that failure to comply, the Commissioner, BBMP and the Competent Authority for issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) should appear in person. The contemnors were also mulcted with costs and were directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,000 to each of the complainants (i.e., contempt petitioners) towards the cost of the contempt proceedings.
On February 13, 2025, the Court ordered the physical presence of the contemnors on the next date of hearing. It was noted that DRCs / TDRs in respect of all the complainants (i.e., contempt petitioners) had not been filed. Subsequently, the Court recorded the submission made by the Senior Counsel appearing for the contemnors, which was to the effect that the DRCs / TDRs would be issued in the individual names of those persons from whom the land had been acquired/possession is taken. Meanwhile, another application came to be filed by the State seeking a direction that the deposit of the TDR Certificates/Original DRCs by the Bangalore Development Authority complies with the earlier judgments and further seeking a direction that till the disposal of the Civil Appeal, the TDRs/DRCs deposited before the Court not be handed over to the claimants.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench said, “The contemnors were held guilty of wilful non-compliance and mulcted the contemnors with costs, by assigning elaborate reasons. Yet, undaunted, the contemnors seem to be further dragging their feet by manoeuvres, and the same is deprecated. We say so, for the simple reason that contemnors under the umbrella of the legislation orders of the Court which ought to be implemented in letter and spirit is sought to be stifled or staved off which cannot be countenanced at any rate”, the Bench mentioned while also adding, “After considering the rival contentions we are of the considered view that it would not detain us for too long to reject the aforesaid application in limine for the reasons indicated hereinafter.”
The Bench was of the view that by sitting in a limited jurisdiction viz., to examine as to whether the order passed by this Court on December 10, 2024, had been complied with or not, it could not act as an appellate court and re-examine the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by this Court.
The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by ordering that the DRCs/TDRs issued if transacted by the contemnors would be without prejudice to the rights of both parties, and statutory embargos if any, will have no bearing on the DRCs/TDRs so released.
To allay the apprehension of the State, the Bench directed the complainants to file an undertaking before this Court by way of an affidavit in these proceedings to the effect that receipt of DRCs / TDRs would be subject to the outcome of pending civil appeals. “...it is also made clear that in the event of contemnors not succeeding in the pending civil appeals and any compensation being awarded in those proceedings, if any, in favour of the complainants, the State shall have the first charge or claim over such compensation so determined or awarded that may be payable by the State to the complainants”, it added.
The Bench thus directed, “The TDRs / DRCs already deposited by the State is ordered to be handed over to the respective complainants or their authorized representative by the Registry forthwith on such affidavits of undertaking as ordered hereinabove being filed. With these observations the contempt petitions stand disposed of and all pending applications stand consigned to records.”
Cause Title: Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs v. S.v. Ranganath and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 762)