Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, contended that a contempt proceeding could not override a High Court judgment and urged the Court to stay the TDRs pending a full hearing.
“You’re essentially seeking further directions. If a coordinate bench has taken a view, how can we sit in appeal over it?” Justice Kant remarked.
Sibal argued that the TDRs were granted under Section 14B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, which came into force in 2004, eight years after the land acquisition in 1996. “He isn’t even the owner. There’s no question of surrender. I’m shocked. Clause 14(b) hasn’t even been referred to,” he said, adding that the State’s review petition had not yet been listed.
Justice Kant asked, “What Section 14B possibly contemplates is that instead of monetary compensation, development rights may be granted.
Sibal expressed willingness to have the matter referred to a larger bench.
The Court advised him to approach the Chief Justice of India to that effect.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the opposing party, strongly objected: “This is an abuse of process! Let me respond.”
The Court, however, clarified that it was only considering an adjournment request and sought clarity on the jurisdiction of the original order.
Ultimately, the Court directed: “The application be referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for suitable directions.”
Previously
On May 26, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear Karnataka government's plea challenging the decision of the Supreme Court itself from last week directing it to hand over the Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”) acquired for widening the Ballari and Jayamahal roads to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family.