Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 762
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 188-189 OF 2013
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
S.V. RANGANATH AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 237 OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
INDRAKSHI DEVI …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
KKUSHIK MUKERJEE AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 103 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS & ANR. …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SMT. SHALINI RAJANEESH, IAS & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.23
09:35:16 IST
Reason:
1
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 104 OF 2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 688 OF 2021
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 556 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3309-10 OF 1997
SMT. DEEPA MALINI DEVI …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SMT. SHALINI RAJANEESH, IAS & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S).129 OF 2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO(S). 556 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
SMT. INDRAKSHI DEVI …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DR. RAJNEESH GOEL & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (C) NO(S). 135 OF 2025
2
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 688 OF 2021
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3310 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 578 OF 2022
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3305 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 716 OF 2023
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3307 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 555 OF 2024
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3310 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 556 OF 2024
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309 OF 1997),
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 585 OF 2024
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3306 OF 1997)
CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS & ANR. …APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
P. RAVI KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. The above contempt petitions had been filed for alleged wilful
disobedience of the orders dated 21.11.2014; 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.
3
By judgment dated 10.12.2024, this Court after taking note of the
purported compliance affidavits dated 09.7.2024, whereunder the
DRC’s /TDR’s 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 DRC’s/ TDR’s, and for
having dragged it’s feet for long number of years i.e., more than 10 years,
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 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.
2. Having made all these attempts and having deposited the DRC’s/
TDR’s before this Court in the names of the respective complainants
(contempt petitioners) except that of the DRC’s/ TDR’s in an incorrect
name in so far as CP. 103 of 2025 is concerned, further I.A. No. 120858 of
2025 has been filed by the Under Secretary, DPAR, Government of
Karnataka (not being a party to be present proceedings) raising fresh
grounds and praying for not releasing the DRC’s/ TDR’s in favour of the
4
complainants till disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before this Court,
and also on the ground that review petitions have been filed for review of
the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 10.12.2024 amongst other
grounds.
3. It would not be out of context to note at this juncture itself that
contentions raised in the purported compliance affidavits are outside the
purview of scrutiny or examination in these proceedings, for the reasons to
follow hereinafter.
4. This Court by order dated 10.12.2024 took note of the rival
contentions raised and held that the directions issued and/or the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 passed by this court had not been
complied with and contemnors had wilfully disobeyed them. However,
the contemnors were extended olive branch to purge in the contempt and
as such were called upon to file compliance report within six (6) weeks
keeping in mind the observations made therein and it was made clear,
failure to comply, the Commissioner, BBMP and the Competent
Authority for issuance of Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”)
should appear in person before this Court, so as to enable this Court to
pass further orders. 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 cost of the contempt proceedings.
5
However, CP No. 578 of 2022, came to be dismissed by granting liberty
to the complainant to pursue their grievance before the competent
authority for issuance of DRC’s/ TDR’s on resolution of the inter-se
dispute and also holding that successful party to said dispute would be
entitled to receive DRC’s/ TDR’s as already ordered by this Court.
5. Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties in CP No.578 of
2022 and other connected matters asserted their respective contentions
raised in their pleadings. Having regard to the order passed by this court on
10.12.2024, we notice that CP No.578 of 2022 has already been disposed
of vide order of even date, and hence, no further order requires to be
passed in the said Petition.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2024, the affidavit of
Mr. Jairam, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA”)
dated 12.02.2025 came to be filed enclosing therewith the TDR’s / DRC’s
which was cancelled and subsequently a new provisional acceptance order
came to be issued on 01.02.2025 in the name of successor in interest of Sri
Jaya Chamarajendra Wadeyar. The affidavit of Mr. Tushar Girinath,
Commissioner, BBMP was also filed and it was to the same effect. When
the matter was listed on 13.02.2025 this Court ordered the physical
presence of the contemnors on the next date of hearing and after hearing
6
learned senior counsels appearing for the parties the following order came
to be passed:
“List all the matter on 27.02.2025 at 2.00 P.M.
The physical presence of the alleged contemnors is
required. Therefore, they are directed to be physically
present before this Court on the next date of hearing.”
7. It was noted that, DRC’s / TDR’s in respect of all the complainants
(i.e., contempt petitioners) had not been filed.
8. Subsequently the matter came to be listed on 20.03.2025 and this
Court recorded the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the contemnors which was to the effect that the DRC’s /
TDR’s would be issued in the individual names of those persons from
whom the land had been acquired/possession is taken. The said submission
came to be recorded and the matter stood over to 24.04.2025.
9. In the meanwhile, I.A. No.102681/ 2025 which came to be filed
by the State was for the following prayers:
i. Direct that the deposit of the TDR Certificates/Original
DRCs by the Bangalore Development Authority is in
compliance with the judgment dated 10.12.2024 and order
dated 20.03.2025 of this Hon’ble Court; and,
ii. Direct that till the disposal of the aforementioned Civil
Appeal, the TDRs/DRCs deposited before this Hon’ble
Court not be handed over to the claimants; and,
7
iii. Pass any such further order or other order(s) as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and for the ends of justice.”
10. Objection to the said application has been filed and learned
advocates appearing for both parties have been heard. 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. At the outset, it requires to be noted, this Court is
examining the issue relating to the compliance of the order of this Court
dated 10.12.2024 which came to be passed in these contempt petitions and
within the limited sphere it has to be examined, as to whether the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 have been complied or not. Scrutiny or
examination of any other issue would only be alien to these proceedings. In
the present proceedings this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 has
discussed in detail as to how the orders passed by this Court have been
strategically and wilfully disobeyed by the contemnors and has arrived at a
definite conclusion that there has been total non-compliance of the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 and that too wilfully. Any amount of
further elaboration on this aspect would only be burdensome on this order.
11. At the cost of repetition we notice that, in order to extend an olive
branch to the contemnors and to allow them to purge in the contempt a
8
final opportunity was granted and accordingly time of six (6) weeks came
to be granted from the date of order (10.12.2024) to comply with the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022. We have already noted the subsequent
events that have taken place in the instant case. 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, had
recorded the submission made on behalf of the contemnors which was to
the following effect:
“The submission made by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the alleged contemnors that the TDR would
be issued in the individual names of those from whom the
land has been acquired/possession is taken stands recorded.
The presence of the alleged contemnors is dispensed
with for now.
List the matters on 24.04.2025 at 2.00 P.M .”
In deference to the said undertaking given to this Court contemnors have
now filed or deposited in the Registry the DRC’s / TDR’s issued in the
individual names of those, from whom the land had been
acquired/possession was taken.
9
12. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
contemnors by reiterating the stand earlier taken by the State, has
contended that complainant (i.e., contempt petitioners) would not be
eligible or entitled to receive the DRC’s/ TDR’s; and by way of alternate
submission he has contended that in the event of this Court were to arrive
at a conclusion that complainants are eligible and/or entitled to receive the
DRC’s / TDR’s which has been deposited in the registry the complainants
should not be permitted to withdraw the same till disposal of Civil Appeals
as well as review petitions. However, we are unable to accept the said
contention for the simple reason and by noting at the cost of repetition, this
court is sitting in a limited jurisdiction viz., to examine as to whether order
passed by this Court on 10.12.2024 has been complied or not and we
would not act as an appellate court and re-examine the correctness or
otherwise of the orders passed by this Court. Those aspects would be
outside the scope of these proceedings and submission to the contrary
cannot be entertained. It is the apprehension of Mr. Kapil Sibal that in the
event of complainants not succeeding in the civil appeals the exchequer
(State) would not be in a position to recover the value of DRC’s/ TDR’s
from the complainants, as the issue relating to the acquisition of the larger
extent of land measuring 472 acres under the enactment i.e., Bangalore
10
Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996. (“BPAT Act”), is at large, is
not a genuine apprehension and same cannot be imported to the orders
which have been wilfully disobeyed by contemnors, and conditions if any
now imposed, for the issuance of TDR’s, we are of the view that it would
amount to tweaking the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and
10.12.2024. The same ought to have been included in the Orders dated
21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 if at all, if any and said conditions cannot be
now incorporated by this Court in these proceedings, that too after having
held the contemnors of having wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court.
13. We notice at the cost of repetition that any further condition if
being imposed in these proceedings it would amount to tinkering or
altering or reviewing or modifying the orders dated 21.11.2014 and
17.05.2022. The pleadings in these proceedings would disclose that
subsequent to the order of this Court dated 10.12.2024, notice came to be
issued by the Deputy Commissioner, BBMP on 31.12.2024 and
15.01.2025, whereunder the complainants were called upon to submit an
undertaking in the format which was enclosed to the said notice dated
15.01.2025. Complainants have furnished the undertakings as per the
format (Refer Additional Affidavit dated 16.02.2025 of Mr. M.L.
Varchusvin S.S. Raje Urs. in MA 135/25.-vide Annexure A-4, Para 6 page
11
3 and 4). Hence, we are of the view that DRC’s /TDR’s 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 DRC’s/ TDR’s
so released. Even otherwise, to allay the apprehension of the State it would
suffice to direct the complainants to file an undertaking before this Court
by way of an affidavit in these proceedings to the effect that receipt of
DRC’s / TDR’s would be subject to outcome of pending civil appeals, and
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. Thus, apprehension
of Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for contemnors
stands allayed. In that view of the matter the note made under the TDR’s /
DRC’s would be of no consequence or it would be irrelevant.
14. The TDR’s / DRC’s deposited in the name of “Shrimati
Indrakashi Tripurawasni” in CP No. 103 of 2025 (Item No.304.10 in the
cause list dated 01.05.2025) is ordered to be rectified as “Shrimati
Indrakshi Devi” only and same be deposited in this Court within four (4)
weeks from today. The TDR’s / DRC’s already deposited by the State is
12
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. The cost which has also been deposited shall be paid
to the respective complainants as ordered on 10.12.2024. With these
observations/ directions these contempt petitions stand disposed of.
15. The contempt petitions No.103; 104 and 129/2025 also stands
disposed of in view of aforestated order.
…..……………………J.
M.M. SUNDRESH)
…..……………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
New Delhi,
May 22, 2025
13
2025 INSC 762
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 188-189 OF 2013
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
S.V. RANGANATH AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 237 OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
INDRAKSHI DEVI …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
KKUSHIK MUKERJEE AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 103 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS & ANR. …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SMT. SHALINI RAJANEESH, IAS & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.23
09:35:16 IST
Reason:
1
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 104 OF 2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 688 OF 2021
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 556 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3309-10 OF 1997
SMT. DEEPA MALINI DEVI …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SMT. SHALINI RAJANEESH, IAS & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S).129 OF 2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO(S). 556 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309-3310 OF 1997
SMT. INDRAKSHI DEVI …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DR. RAJNEESH GOEL & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (C) NO(S). 135 OF 2025
2
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 688 OF 2021
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3310 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 578 OF 2022
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3305 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 716 OF 2023
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3307 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 555 OF 2024
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3310 OF 1997),
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 556 OF 2024
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3309 OF 1997),
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). 585 OF 2024
(IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3306 OF 1997)
CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS & ANR. …APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
P. RAVI KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. The above contempt petitions had been filed for alleged wilful
disobedience of the orders dated 21.11.2014; 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.
3
By judgment dated 10.12.2024, this Court after taking note of the
purported compliance affidavits dated 09.7.2024, whereunder the
DRC’s /TDR’s 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 DRC’s/ TDR’s, and for
having dragged it’s feet for long number of years i.e., more than 10 years,
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 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.
2. Having made all these attempts and having deposited the DRC’s/
TDR’s before this Court in the names of the respective complainants
(contempt petitioners) except that of the DRC’s/ TDR’s in an incorrect
name in so far as CP. 103 of 2025 is concerned, further I.A. No. 120858 of
2025 has been filed by the Under Secretary, DPAR, Government of
Karnataka (not being a party to be present proceedings) raising fresh
grounds and praying for not releasing the DRC’s/ TDR’s in favour of the
4
complainants till disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before this Court,
and also on the ground that review petitions have been filed for review of
the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 10.12.2024 amongst other
grounds.
3. It would not be out of context to note at this juncture itself that
contentions raised in the purported compliance affidavits are outside the
purview of scrutiny or examination in these proceedings, for the reasons to
follow hereinafter.
4. This Court by order dated 10.12.2024 took note of the rival
contentions raised and held that the directions issued and/or the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 passed by this court had not been
complied with and contemnors had wilfully disobeyed them. However,
the contemnors were extended olive branch to purge in the contempt and
as such were called upon to file compliance report within six (6) weeks
keeping in mind the observations made therein and it was made clear,
failure to comply, the Commissioner, BBMP and the Competent
Authority for issuance of Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”)
should appear in person before this Court, so as to enable this Court to
pass further orders. 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 cost of the contempt proceedings.
5
However, CP No. 578 of 2022, came to be dismissed by granting liberty
to the complainant to pursue their grievance before the competent
authority for issuance of DRC’s/ TDR’s on resolution of the inter-se
dispute and also holding that successful party to said dispute would be
entitled to receive DRC’s/ TDR’s as already ordered by this Court.
5. Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties in CP No.578 of
2022 and other connected matters asserted their respective contentions
raised in their pleadings. Having regard to the order passed by this court on
10.12.2024, we notice that CP No.578 of 2022 has already been disposed
of vide order of even date, and hence, no further order requires to be
passed in the said Petition.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2024, the affidavit of
Mr. Jairam, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA”)
dated 12.02.2025 came to be filed enclosing therewith the TDR’s / DRC’s
which was cancelled and subsequently a new provisional acceptance order
came to be issued on 01.02.2025 in the name of successor in interest of Sri
Jaya Chamarajendra Wadeyar. The affidavit of Mr. Tushar Girinath,
Commissioner, BBMP was also filed and it was to the same effect. When
the matter was listed on 13.02.2025 this Court ordered the physical
presence of the contemnors on the next date of hearing and after hearing
6
learned senior counsels appearing for the parties the following order came
to be passed:
“List all the matter on 27.02.2025 at 2.00 P.M.
The physical presence of the alleged contemnors is
required. Therefore, they are directed to be physically
present before this Court on the next date of hearing.”
7. It was noted that, DRC’s / TDR’s in respect of all the complainants
(i.e., contempt petitioners) had not been filed.
8. Subsequently the matter came to be listed on 20.03.2025 and this
Court recorded the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the contemnors which was to the effect that the DRC’s /
TDR’s would be issued in the individual names of those persons from
whom the land had been acquired/possession is taken. The said submission
came to be recorded and the matter stood over to 24.04.2025.
9. In the meanwhile, I.A. No.102681/ 2025 which came to be filed
by the State was for the following prayers:
i. Direct that the deposit of the TDR Certificates/Original
DRCs by the Bangalore Development Authority is in
compliance with the judgment dated 10.12.2024 and order
dated 20.03.2025 of this Hon’ble Court; and,
ii. Direct that till the disposal of the aforementioned Civil
Appeal, the TDRs/DRCs deposited before this Hon’ble
Court not be handed over to the claimants; and,
7
iii. Pass any such further order or other order(s) as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and for the ends of justice.”
10. Objection to the said application has been filed and learned
advocates appearing for both parties have been heard. 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. At the outset, it requires to be noted, this Court is
examining the issue relating to the compliance of the order of this Court
dated 10.12.2024 which came to be passed in these contempt petitions and
within the limited sphere it has to be examined, as to whether the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 have been complied or not. Scrutiny or
examination of any other issue would only be alien to these proceedings. In
the present proceedings this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 has
discussed in detail as to how the orders passed by this Court have been
strategically and wilfully disobeyed by the contemnors and has arrived at a
definite conclusion that there has been total non-compliance of the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 and that too wilfully. Any amount of
further elaboration on this aspect would only be burdensome on this order.
11. At the cost of repetition we notice that, in order to extend an olive
branch to the contemnors and to allow them to purge in the contempt a
8
final opportunity was granted and accordingly time of six (6) weeks came
to be granted from the date of order (10.12.2024) to comply with the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022. We have already noted the subsequent
events that have taken place in the instant case. 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, had
recorded the submission made on behalf of the contemnors which was to
the following effect:
“The submission made by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the alleged contemnors that the TDR would
be issued in the individual names of those from whom the
land has been acquired/possession is taken stands recorded.
The presence of the alleged contemnors is dispensed
with for now.
List the matters on 24.04.2025 at 2.00 P.M .”
In deference to the said undertaking given to this Court contemnors have
now filed or deposited in the Registry the DRC’s / TDR’s issued in the
individual names of those, from whom the land had been
acquired/possession was taken.
9
12. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
contemnors by reiterating the stand earlier taken by the State, has
contended that complainant (i.e., contempt petitioners) would not be
eligible or entitled to receive the DRC’s/ TDR’s; and by way of alternate
submission he has contended that in the event of this Court were to arrive
at a conclusion that complainants are eligible and/or entitled to receive the
DRC’s / TDR’s which has been deposited in the registry the complainants
should not be permitted to withdraw the same till disposal of Civil Appeals
as well as review petitions. However, we are unable to accept the said
contention for the simple reason and by noting at the cost of repetition, this
court is sitting in a limited jurisdiction viz., to examine as to whether order
passed by this Court on 10.12.2024 has been complied or not and we
would not act as an appellate court and re-examine the correctness or
otherwise of the orders passed by this Court. Those aspects would be
outside the scope of these proceedings and submission to the contrary
cannot be entertained. It is the apprehension of Mr. Kapil Sibal that in the
event of complainants not succeeding in the civil appeals the exchequer
(State) would not be in a position to recover the value of DRC’s/ TDR’s
from the complainants, as the issue relating to the acquisition of the larger
extent of land measuring 472 acres under the enactment i.e., Bangalore
10
Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996. (“BPAT Act”), is at large, is
not a genuine apprehension and same cannot be imported to the orders
which have been wilfully disobeyed by contemnors, and conditions if any
now imposed, for the issuance of TDR’s, we are of the view that it would
amount to tweaking the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and
10.12.2024. The same ought to have been included in the Orders dated
21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 if at all, if any and said conditions cannot be
now incorporated by this Court in these proceedings, that too after having
held the contemnors of having wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court.
13. We notice at the cost of repetition that any further condition if
being imposed in these proceedings it would amount to tinkering or
altering or reviewing or modifying the orders dated 21.11.2014 and
17.05.2022. The pleadings in these proceedings would disclose that
subsequent to the order of this Court dated 10.12.2024, notice came to be
issued by the Deputy Commissioner, BBMP on 31.12.2024 and
15.01.2025, whereunder the complainants were called upon to submit an
undertaking in the format which was enclosed to the said notice dated
15.01.2025. Complainants have furnished the undertakings as per the
format (Refer Additional Affidavit dated 16.02.2025 of Mr. M.L.
Varchusvin S.S. Raje Urs. in MA 135/25.-vide Annexure A-4, Para 6 page
11
3 and 4). Hence, we are of the view that DRC’s /TDR’s 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 DRC’s/ TDR’s
so released. Even otherwise, to allay the apprehension of the State it would
suffice to direct the complainants to file an undertaking before this Court
by way of an affidavit in these proceedings to the effect that receipt of
DRC’s / TDR’s would be subject to outcome of pending civil appeals, and
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. Thus, apprehension
of Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for contemnors
stands allayed. In that view of the matter the note made under the TDR’s /
DRC’s would be of no consequence or it would be irrelevant.
14. The TDR’s / DRC’s deposited in the name of “Shrimati
Indrakashi Tripurawasni” in CP No. 103 of 2025 (Item No.304.10 in the
cause list dated 01.05.2025) is ordered to be rectified as “Shrimati
Indrakshi Devi” only and same be deposited in this Court within four (4)
weeks from today. The TDR’s / DRC’s already deposited by the State is
12
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. The cost which has also been deposited shall be paid
to the respective complainants as ordered on 10.12.2024. With these
observations/ directions these contempt petitions stand disposed of.
15. The contempt petitions No.103; 104 and 129/2025 also stands
disposed of in view of aforestated order.
…..……………………J.
M.M. SUNDRESH)
…..……………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
New Delhi,
May 22, 2025
13