Page 1

1

NON REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2011

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3303 OF 1997

Sri Srikanta D.N. Wadiyar (D)  Through LRs … Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka and others …  Respondents

O R D E R

By  means  of  this  Interlocutory  Application  the  first  

respondent – State of Karnataka has prayed as under: -

“[i] Permit the State of Karnataka to widen the   road in the adjoining areas of the Palace Ground,   Ramana  Maharshi  Road  [Bellary  Road]  and  Jayamahal Road as per sketch;

Page 2

2

[ii] grant  permission to  complete the proposed  work of widening the roads, utilizing total area of   15  Acres  39  guntas  of  the  Bangalore  Palace  Ground, in the interest of justice and equity; and

[iii] To pay compensation to the above land as   per the calculation in the original award, which is   agreed upon by this Hon’ble Court on an earlier   occasion  i.e.,  while  disposing  I.A.  No.  2  on   15.02.1999  or  any  other  compensation  package  that this Hon’ble Court may suggest.”

2. Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  including  the  

parties in connected civil  appeal  Nos.  3309-3310 of 1997,  

3305 of 1997, 3306 of 1997, 3308 of 1997, 3307 of 1997  

and 3351 of 1997.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Bangalore Palace  

(Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) was  

passed   by  Karnataka  Legislature  to  acquire  Bangalore  

Palace,  which compendiously means,  main palace building  

and other buildings with the surroundings open space and  

the compound wall all around.  Constitutionality of said Act  

was challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 3383 of 1997, 32175 of  

1996, 33146 of 1996, 33147 of 1996, 33148 of 1996, C/w  

Nos.  32175  of  1996,  33649  of  1996,  33785  of  1996  and  

33786 of 1996 by the appellants who are legal heirs of late

Page 3

3

Maharaja of Mysore and some other persons who claimed  

interest in the Bangalore Palace and the land appurtenant  

thereto spread over in more than 400 acres of land.  Said  

writ petitions were dismissed vide judgment and order dated  

31.3.1997 passed by the High Court of Karnataka upholding  

the validity of the Act.  From the perusal of record (including  

the  order  dated  15.7.2003  passed  in  these  appeals),  it  

appears that the issue relating to validity of the Act in the  

aforementioned appeals is referred for consideration to nine-

Judge Bench.

4.   By interim order dated 30.4.1997, this Court directed  

the  parties  to  maintain  status  quo  pending  disposal  of  

special leave petition.  Also, vide another interim order dated  

24.11.2000 passed on I.A. No. 11 of 2000 in Civil Appeal No.  

3303 of 1997, in terms of proposals made in paragraphs 3  

and  4  in  the  reply  of  said  application,  and  acceptance  

expressed by  the  Advocate  General,  the  respondent-State  

appears to have been allowed to utilize the palace land for  

road widening  and construction  of  underpass  near  Mekhri

Page 4

4

Circle, Bangalore, i.e.,  land adjacent to the roads between  

New  Airport  constructed  at  Devanhalli  (Bangalore  

International  Airport)  and  Bangalore  Palace.   From  order  

dated 24.11.2000 passed in I.A.  No.  11 of 2000 it  further  

reveals  that  the  learned  Advocate  General  of  the  State  

submitted  before  this  Court  that  for  calculation  of  

compensation, the formula laid down in the order passed on  

15.2.1999 in I.A. No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 3303 of 1997 shall  

be followed.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that  

road widening is necessary for easing the traffic congestion  

and  frequent  traffic  jams.   It  is  further  stated  by  the  

respondent-State  in  the  present  I.A.  No.  13  of  2011  that  

Bruhat  Bangalore  Mahanagara  Palike  (BBMP)  has  mooted  

proposal  to widen Ramana Maharshi  Road (Bellary Road –  

New  Airport  Road)  and  Jayamahal  Road  adjacent  to  

Bangalore Palace, as these roads are directly linked with the  

New Airport.  According to the proposal of the plan prepared  

by BBMP a total land of 15 acres 39 guntas is needed for the

Page 5

5

project.   Commissioner,  BBMP,  through  his  letter  dated  

20.11.2009,  made  necessary  request  to  the  Principal  

Secretary  to  Government,  DPAR  of  the  State,  in  reply  to  

which said authority vide its letter dated 10.12.2009, agreed  

for the proposed project of widening the road in and around  

palace  ground,  and  a  permission  for  the  purposes  of  

acquisition of land was communicated vide communication  

dated 25.1.2001 (Annexure R-3 to the present application).

6. Regarding details  of  the land measuring 15 acres 39  

guntas  paragraph 5 of  the present  I.A.  No.  13 of  2011 is  

reproduced below: -

“5. It  is  submitted  that  the  Commissioner  of   B.B.M.P.  has  written  one  more  letter  dated  0505.2010 to the Additional Chief Secretary and  Principal  Secretary,  Urban  Development  Department, Bangalore, bringing to his notice the   Project  for  Road  widening  and  copy  of  the  said   letter dated 05.05.2010 is herewith produced and   marked as ANNEXURE-R4.  The statement showing  the  area  of  land  of  Bangalore  Palace  Ground   required for widening the Bellary Road from B.D.A.   junction to Mekhri Circle [2.55 Kms. To 4.05 Kms.   = 1.5 Km.] is as under:

Page 6

6

Sl. Name of the From Chanage Length Average Area

No. Owner [in Km.] in Mtr. Width in in sq.

  To Mtr.

 1 2    3     4     5      6    7

1. Sri Srikantadatta 2.55 3.227 667.00 18.38   12446.00

N. Wadiyar

2. Miss Minakshi 3.2273+385.50 158.50 23.40   3710.00

Devi

3. Miss Kamakshi 3+384.5  3.545 158.50 17.75   2813.50

Devi

4. Miss Vishalakshi 3.5443+702.50 158.50 18.65   2955.50

Devi

5. Sri Sridhar 3+702.50  3+895.50 193.00 17.49   3375.87

Ramachandraraju

Urs

6. Smt. Indirakshi 3+895.50  4.05 154.50 6.18       955.12

Page 7

7

Devi

Total [A] 1500.00 26256.00

[B]  Land  of  Bangalore  Palace  Ground  required  for   Jayamahal  Road  Widening  from  Mekhri  Circle  to   Cantonment Railway Station is as under:

Sl. Name of the From Chanage Length Average Area

No. Owner [in Km.] in Mtr. Width in in sq.

  To Mtr.

1        2    3     4     5      6    7

1. Sri Srikantadatta 0+000 1.582 1582.00 17.19   27201.25

N. Wadiyar

2. Miss Indrakshi 0+650  0+700 50.00 3.2       160.00

Devi

3. Sri A. 1.582  2.74 1158.00 9.53   11038.75

Chandrashekar

Raja

M/s. Chamundi

Page 8

8

Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Total [B] 2790.00  --   38400.00

Grand Total : [A+B] = 64.656.00 Sqm. [15A – 39G]

A copy of the sketch showing the widening of the road is   herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R5.”

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State argued that  

existing  roads  in  and  around  Bangalore  Palace  are  very  

congested  leading  to  frequent  traffic  jams  and  traffic  

disorders.   As such the widening of the road has become  

essential.  It is further contended that widening of the road is  

in the public interest to avoid traffic jams.  It is also informed  

that  BBMP  had  already  widened  Bellary  Road  from  

Rajbhawan  to  Devanhalli,  except  the  stretch  near  the  

Bangalore Palace ground.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants in the present case  

and  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  in  the  connected

Page 9

9

appeals,  except  the appellant  in  Civil  Appeal  No.  3309 of  

1997, in response to above arguments, submitted that they  

are ready to surrender the required land as above provided  

Transfer Development Right (TDR) is given to them under  

the TDR Rules. Some of the appellants said to have already  

received usual compensation also.

9. Learned counsel  for  the non-applicants (appellants  in  

various appeals) have stated that, in the public interest, as  

expressed  in  the  need  to  widen  the  existing  roads,  they  

would  be  willing  to  accept  the  proposal  of  the  Bruhat  

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in its letter dated 26.12.2009  

in which the penultimate paragraph reads as follows: -

“As  per  your  request  Bruhat  Bangalore  Mahanagara  Palika  will  be  issuing  TDR  for  the  extent of land acquired as per Karnataka Town &  Country  Planning  Act,  and  the  TDR  guidelines  subject  to  the  final  decision  of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court.”

The  State,  however,  did  not  grant  its  approval  to  this  

proposal and has instead offered to pay compensation for

Page 10

10

the acquisition as per the rates relevant at the time of the  

passing of the Act.  The impasse is, therefore, to be crossed.

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.

………………………………J. [Vikramajit Sen]

………………………………J.                                                  [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; November  21, 2014.