Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release Of DRCs/TDRs Deposited In Registry, Rejects State’s Plea To Withhold Pending Appeals

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar heard multiple contempt petitions arising out of Civil Appeal Nos. 3309-3310 of 1997, concerning alleged wilful disobedience of this Court's orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 10.12.2024. The petitions challenged delays and alleged manoeuvres by State authorities in issuing and depositing Development Rights Certificates (DRCs) / Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 (BPAT Act).

The Court held that the proceedings were limited to determining compliance with its earlier orders and declined to entertain substantive re‑examination of the merits of the underlying acquisition or entitlement. It observed that contemnors had “wilfully disobeyed” earlier directions, but, having given an opportunity to purge contempt, the Court found that DRCs/TDRs deposited in the Registry were to be handed over to the respective complainants on their filing of specified undertakings. The State’s application praying that the certificates not be released till disposal of the pending civil appeals and review petitions was rejected in limine. The Court directed correction of a misnomer on one set of certificates, ordered payment of previously imposed costs to the complainants, and disposed of connected contempt petitions. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court also recorded that an “olive branch” had been extended to contemnors to purge contempt.

Background The dispute arose from long‑running litigation concerning acquisition of large tracts of land under the BPAT Act and the entitlement to DRCs/TDRs in lieu of acquisition. Complainants (contempt petitioners) alleged prolonged non‑compliance by State authorities and municipal agencies in issuing DRCs/TDRs as directed by this Court. Earlier, by order dated 10.12.2024 the Court rejected purported compliance affidavits and held that the orders of 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 had not been complied with, finding “wilful non‑compliance” and mulcting contemnors with costs while granting a six‑week opportunity to purge contempt.

Following that order, authorities deposited certificates in the Registry; some were said to be in incorrect names or otherwise not in conformity with the Court’s directions. The State filed I.A. No.102681/2025 seeking a direction that the deposited certificates were in compliance and praying that they not be handed over till disposal of pending civil appeals and review petitions. The Court rejected that application, holding that the limited question before it was compliance with earlier orders and that imposing further conditions or re‑opening merits would amount to “tinkering” with those orders. The Court accepted that the certificates had been deposited in the individual names of persons from whom land was acquired but required rectification of one misnomer from “Shrimati Indrakashi Tripurawasni” to “Shrimati Indrakshi Devi”. To allay the State’s apprehension about recovery in the event the State succeeded in appeals, the Court directed complainants to file an affidavit undertaking that receipt of DRCs/TDRs would be “subject to outcome of pending civil appeals,” and clarified that the State would have a first charge over any compensation subsequently awarded. The Court ordered the Registry to hand over the DRCs/TDRs to the respective complainants or their authorised representatives on filing such undertaking within four weeks, directed rectification of the named certificate within the same period, and disposed of the listed contempt petitions and pending applications. The Court further ordered that costs already deposited be paid to the complainants as earlier directed.

Case Details: Case No.: Contempt Petition(s) (C) Nos. 188-189 of 2013; 237 of 2014; 103, 104, 129 of 2025 and connected contempt matters in Civil Appeal Nos. 3309-3310 of 1997 (and other connected petitions as listed in the judgment) Case Title: Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs & Ors. v. S.V. Ranganath & Ors. and connected contempt petitions in Civil Appeal Nos. 3309-3310 of 1997 Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Contempt petitioners/complainants) — specific advocates not routinely identified in the extract submitted to the Court For the Respondent(s): Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel (appearing for the State/contemnors); affidavits filed by Jairam (Commissioner, BDA) and Tushar Girinath (Commissioner, BBMP) were placed on record

Judgment delivered by Justice Aravind Kumar (for the bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar) on May 22, 2025.