Bangalore Palace Grounds ownership case

Sir,

Apropos the news report ‘Bangalore Palace Grounds Ownership Case: State to File Interim Application before SC seeking early hearing’ in SOM dated Jan. 17, 2025.

It appears to be a case of exhibition of executive puniness by the State government which is unable to digest the order of the Supreme Court dated 10.12.2024 to a host of analogous Contempt Petitions against the Chief Secretary, Chief Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for wilfully disobeying the order of the Apex Court for well over 10 years.

Veteran politician and Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H.K. Patil shows his lack of knowledge when he talks about the Government’s appeal, citing the “financial strain of Rs. 3,011 crore in providing TDR…”

 The scheme of TDR itself is designed to avoid the so-called “financial strain” on the local authorities from acquiring valuable urban land towards building roads or other infrastructures.

The local authority is just giving a Certificate called TDR/DRC (Transferable Development Rights/ Development Rights Certificate) to enable the owners to sell the DRC to willing builders at the prevailing market value for such an instrument and build additional floors against legally permissible Floor Space Index (FSI).

 To put it bluntly, it is just an immoral act from an instrumentality of the State legalising an illegal building. The obvious “strain” in the heartstrings is the bureaucratic jealousy about someone getting compensated for the land surrendered.

Today, the right to property is recognised in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: “Article 17: 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government.

Thomas Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. “Property must be secured; else liberty cannot subsist” was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seedbed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish, is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.

Yet, here is a so-called “Responsible Government” which is trying to browbeat a family and evict them from their ancestral home by calling it a material resource of the community just to deny fair compensation. Imagine a measly Rs. 11 crore for around 470 acres whereas in the immediate neighbourhood for that amount one cannot even have a 100’x100’ site!

Whether the State files IA for an early hearing or not, the challenge against the “Bangalore Palace (Acquisition & Transfer) Act 1996, will be heard in due course as the nine-Judge Bench case on the applicability of Art. 39 (b) of the Constitution to private properties has been clarified in Nov 2024.

Even now the Supreme Court may well defer hearing the case as in State of West Bengal and others Vs Paschim Banga B.K. Samity and others, the Apex Court has said a Constitution Bench of 5 should decide.”

The  question is:  “Whether Article 300 A, which does not contain a provision like Article 31(2), would mandate payment of any amount as compensation for depriving a person of his property under the authority of law? If yes, then what are the parameters of adjudging the principles for payment of amount or the amount fixed by the Acquiring Act as illusory?”

Coming to the so-called threat to file a Contempt Petition against the alleged illegal structures, is nothing but a retribution and retaliation by a sulking State ! 

 – R. Raja Chandra, Bengaluru, 18.1.2025

You can also mail us your views, opinions, and stories to voice@starofmysore.com