22 May 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

The Supreme Court of India recently disposed of several contempt petitions in Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs & Others v/s S.V. Ranganath & Others, firmly reiterating its stance on the "wilful disobedience" of its prior orders concerning the issuance of Development Rights Certificates (DRCs) and Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) for acquired land. The Court's decision, issued after prolonged non-compliance stretching over a decade, underscores its resolve to ensure the prompt implementation of its judgments.

The core issue revolved around the failure of the contemnors (officials from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)) to comply with orders issued on November 21, 2014, and May 17, 2022, which directed the issuance of DRCs/TDRs at a value determined under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 (BPAT Act).

A History of Non-Compliance and "Manoeuvres"

The Court noted that despite its December 10, 2024 judgment, which found the contemnors guilty of wilful non-compliance and imposed costs, they continued to "drag their feet by manoeuvres." The Court deprecated these attempts to stifle or stave off the implementation of its orders.

The contemnors had initially filed "purported compliance affidavits" in July 2024, proposing to issue DRCs/TDRs based on a different valuation method, which the Court had rejected. Even after being given a "final opportunity" to purge the contempt and file a compliance report within six weeks of the December 10, 2024 order, full compliance remained elusive.

Attempts to Delay Release of DRCs/TDRs Rejected:

Further attempts to delay the release of the DRCs/TDRs were made through an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 120858 of 2025) filed by the Under Secretary, DPAR, Government of Karnataka. The application sought to prevent the release of the DRCs/TDRs until civil appeals and review petitions related to the original orders were disposed of.

The Supreme Court summarily rejected this application, asserting that its jurisdiction in contempt proceedings was limited to examining compliance with its December 10, 2024 order. The Court explicitly stated that it would not act as an appellate court to re-examine the correctness of its previous orders, nor would it entertain contentions outside the scope of the compliance review.

Court's Firm Directions:

Despite the contemnors' persistent attempts to introduce new conditions or delay tactics, the Court held firm. It dismissed the contention that the complainants were ineligible to receive the DRCs/TDRs. Addressing the State's apprehension about recovering the value of DRCs/TDRs if the complainants did not succeed in the pending civil appeals, the Court deemed it "not a genuine apprehension."

To allay this concern, the Court directed the complainants to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit, stating that the receipt of the DRCs/TDRs would be subject to the outcome of the pending civil appeals. Furthermore, it clarified that if the State were to be liable for compensation in those appeals, it would have the "first charge or claim" over such compensation.

In a specific instance, the Court ordered the rectification of a name on a TDR/DRC from "Shrimati Indrakashi Tripurawasni" to "Shrimati Indrakshi Devi" within four weeks.

Finally, the Court ordered the immediate handover of the already deposited DRCs/TDRs to the respective complainants or their authorized representatives upon filing the required affidavits of undertaking. The costs imposed on the contemnors in the December 10, 2024 order were also directed to be paid to the respective complainants. With these directions, the contempt petitions and all pending applications were disposed of.