Holding

The respondents wilfully disobeyed the Court's orders and must issue TDRs as per the Karnataka Stamp Act's market values, with the extra conditions of the 19‑03‑2024 order recalled.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the State of Karnataka and its agencies wilfully disobeyed its earlier orders dated 21‑11‑2014, 17‑05‑2022 and 19‑03‑2024 directing the issuance of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for land acquired for road widening. The petitioners alleged that the respondents delayed and altered the implementation, suppressed facts, and failed to issue TDRs as per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules and the Karnataka Stamp Act. The Court reiterated that contempt requires a finding of wilful, intentional disobedience and that contempt cannot be used as a tool for execution of a decree where alternative remedies exist. It held that the respondents’ conduct amounted to wilful disobedience, that the additional conditions imposed on 19‑03‑2024 were contrary to the earlier orders, and that the State must issue TDRs based on the market values fixed under the Stamp Act. The Court recalled the extra condition, directed issuance of TDRs within six weeks, ordered compliance affidavits, and allowed the contempt petitions while disposing of one petition.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court's orders dated 21‑11‑2014, 17‑05‑2022 and 19‑03‑2024.
Whether contempt of court jurisdiction can be invoked when alternative legal remedies are available.
Whether the additional conditions imposed by the Court on 19‑03‑2024 are valid or contrary to earlier orders.
Whether the valuation of TDRs must follow the market values prescribed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Order – to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ – It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom – It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or

Subjects

Suppressio Veri Suggestio FalsiLex non cogit ad impossibiliaBonafideMalafideGovernment OrdersContemptModificationComplianceCompensationFinancial HardshipWilful DisobedienceDisobedience of orderAlternate remedyAction in disregardKnowledge of consequence

Judgment

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1287 : 2024 INSC 957

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr.
v.
P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 688 of 2021)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997)
10 December 2024
[M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024
passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the
respondents/contemnors.

Headnotes†
Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Order – Willful
Disobedience:
Held: In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ – It means knowingly-intentional,
conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of
consequences flowing therefrom – It would exclude casual,
accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and
would also not include involuntary or negligent actions – The
deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is
doing and intends to do the same – It is too well settled that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious,
a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. [Para 1.10]

Contempt of Court – Execution of decree – Alternate remedy:
Held: The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of
the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative
remedy in law is provided for – The paramount consideration is
given to maintain court’s dignity and majesty of law. [Para 1.11]

Contempt of Court – Wilful disobedience – Action in disregard:
Held: The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of
a decision of this Court – What would be relevant is the “wilful
* Author
1288 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

disobedience” – Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard
to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a
deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can
be clutched. [Para 1.12]

Contempt of Court – Allegation of wilful disobedience of the
Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed
by this Court:
Held: A plain reading of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
would indicate that direction issued to the respondents is to the
effect that TDR had to be issued as per TDR rules – There was
no ambiguity or vagueness in the said orders – It is also not the
case of the contemnors that any doubt being there in the said
orders – The respondents seem to have dragged their feet and for
no justifiable reason whatsoever have not implemented the said
orders – Thus, explicitly there has been wilful disobedience of orders
of this Court and respondents having failed in their attempt to seek
modification of order dated 21.11.2014 cannot take umbrage under
any circumstances whatsoever for not implementing the orders of
this Court, particularly when clarification/modification prayer was put
to rest on 17.05.2022 by this Court – In fact, this Court by Order
dated 19.03.2024 with the hope that respondents would purge in the
contempt by implementing the same in its letter & spirit had directed
compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 – An
additional condition was imposed or in other words orders dated
21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 was tweaked by this Court – A valiant
attempt has been made by the contemnors to contend that orders
of this Court has been complied by passing of the order dated
15.03.2024 and issuance of consequential notices and Government
Orders – In the notices issued on 10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the
authorities seems to be projecting a picture that the possession
of the subject land has not been delivered and this is nothing but
suppressing the true facts and making a false statement before
this Court namely suppressio veri suggestio falsi – The State and
its authorities have no doubt dragged their feet in implementing
the orders of the Court – However, there seems to be thin line
of doubt which has arisen in the mind of State and its authorities
as regards the valuation and in this direction if steps have been
taken to protect the interest of the revenue and several meetings
have been held and these aspects are placed before the State
Cabinet and a decision has been taken by the State cabinet, it
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1289

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

cannot be construed or held that State is not willing to implement
the order and particularly in the background of several orders
having been passed though not in consonance with the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 – Hence, this Court deems it
proper to extend one final opportunity to report compliance within a
time frame – Since, the State and its authorities have intentionally
dragged its feet for long number of years and having attempted
to tap all the mirage remedies and left with no other option and
to stave off these proceedings have passed the orders dated
15.03.2024, 22.04.2024, 24.05.2024 and 10.06.2024 to utilise the
subject land for road widening, fixing the extent to which each of
the claimants would be entitled for compensation and to issue the
TDR on an estimate value which is not accepted by this Court, still
an opportunity to issue TDR’s as per market value as envisaged
under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ought to be extended to the
respondents/contemnors – Hence, the respondent authorities
directed to issue the TDR as per the value noticed by the Court in
favour of the respective claimants – It is also explicitly made clear
that the order dated 19.03.2024 to the extent of imposing additional
conditions is hereby recalled, as it is diametrically opposite to the
order dated 17.05.2022 and 21.11.2014 – The directions issued
under Orders dated: 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 to be complied by
the competent authority of BBMP. [Paras 5.3, 10, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25]

Case Law Cited
Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Ravishekeran [2014) 4 SCR 27 :
(2014) 3 SCC 373; Rita Markanday v. Surjit Singh Arora [1996]
Supp. 7 SCR 56 : (1996) 6 SCC 14; Rama Narang v. Ramesh
Narang [2021] 1 SCR 389 : (2021) 15 SCC 338; Ram kishan v.
Tarun Bajaj & Ors [2014] 1 SCR 538 : (2014) 16 SCC 204; All
Bengal Excise Licensees Associationv. Raghabendra Singh and
Others [2007] 3 SCR 816 : (2007) 11 SCC 374 – referred to.

List of Acts
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

List of Keywords
Suppressio Veri Suggestio Falsi; Lex non cogit ad impossibilia;
Bonafide; Malafide; Government Orders; Contempt; Modification;
1290 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Contempt; Compliance; Compensation; Financial Hardship; Wilful
Disobedience; Disobedience of order; Alternate remedy; Action in
disregard; Knowledge of consequence.

Case Arising From
INHERENT APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
No. 688 of 2021
In
Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and
19.03.2024 of the Supreme Court of India
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 578 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 3305
of 1997, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 716 of 2023 in Civil Appeal
No. 3307 of 1997 with Interlocutory Application No. 39734 of 2023,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 555 of 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 3310
of 1997, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 556 of 2024 in Civil Appeal
No. 3309 of 1997, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 585 of 2024 in
Civil Appeal No. 3306 of 1997

Appearances for Parties
C. Aryama Sundaram, Dhruv Mehta, Aditya Sondhi, Gopal
Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Advs., T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar,
Subham Kothari, Bharathi Subramanian, Bharathi Subramaniayan,
Keith Varghese, Prashant, Anoop Krishna, Ms. Nayana Tara Bg,
Rajat Sehgal, Mrs. Vandana Anand, Ms. Bina Madhavan, S. Udaya
Kumar Sagar, P. Balaji Verma, Tushar Singh, Katubadi Ismail (for
M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co.), Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Mrs. Lalita
Kaushik, Abhay Kumar, Manu Nair, Neelabh Shreesh, Aryan Roy,
S. S. Shroff, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Shashi Kiran Shetty, AG, Nishanth Patil, A.A.G., Dama Seshadri
Naidu, Sr. Advs., V. N. Raghupathy, Adithya Bhat, Ms. Adoorya
Bomakka Harish, Ayush P. Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S, Pai Amit,
Kushal Dube, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Tathagata Dutta, Abhiyudaya
Vats, Nikhil Pahwa, Ssahel Sood, Abhinav Thakur, Mayank Jain,
Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Tarun, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Pramod Dayal,
Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1291

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Alleging wilful disobedience of the Orders dated 21.11.2014,
17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court, these contempt
petitions have been filed for punishing the respondents for their
alleged contumacious act.
1.1 For purposes of convenience the contempt petitions which
have been filed with details appended thereto are tabulated
herein below:
Serial CONTEMPT COMPLAINANT/S RESPONDENT/S ORDER ALLEGED TO
No. PETITION No. HAVE BEEN FILED
1 CP. No. 688 Chaduranga Shri P. Ravi Order dt. 21.11.2014
of 2021 in Kanthraj Urs and Kumar and Ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of
C.A. NO. 3309 Anr. 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
-3310 /1997 1997.
2 CP. No. Chamundi Hotel Smt. Vandita Order dt. 21.11.2014
578/2022 in Private Limited Sharma and Ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of
C.A. No. 3305 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
of 1997 1997.

ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.

iii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in
CP No. 578 of 2022.
3 CP. No. 716 of M.L Varchusvin Smt Vandita i. Order dt. 21.11.2014
2023 in C.A. S.S. Raje Urs. Sharma and Ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of
No. 3307 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997.

ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
4 CP. No. 555 of Chaduranga Dr. Rajneesh i.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
2024 in C.A. Kanthraj Urs and Goel and Ors. I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
No. 3310 of Anr. C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
1997 and C.P.
ii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in
688 of 2021
CP No. 578 of 2022.
1292 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

5 CP. No. 556 of Smt. Indrakshi Devi Rajneesh Goel i.Order dt. 21.11.2014
2024 in C.A. and Ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of
No. 3309 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997 1997.

ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
6 C.P No. 585 of Kamakshi Devi Rajneesh Goel i.Order dt. 21.11.2014
2024 in C.A. Avaru and ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of
No. 3306 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of
1997 1997.

ii.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in
I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in
C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.

The aforestated analogous petitions are taken up together
and disposed of by this Common Order as they involve facts
in common.
1.2 The petitioners in the aforestated contempt petitions have
contended that the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022,
including the order dated 19.03.2024 is clear and explicit
whereunder the respondent authorities have been directed
by this Court to issue TDR as per TDR Rules in favour of the
respective land owners whose land has been acquired for
widening of Bellary and Jayamahal Roads and yet respondents
have failed to do so and thereby they have wilfully disobeyed the
directions and orders passed by this Court. It is also contended
that though Bengaluru Development Authority (for short BDA)
and Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (for short BBMP)
on the one hand were taking steps to issue TDR by calling for
information from the petitioners, on the other hand Government
of Karnataka passed an Order on 23.02.2021 expressing its
difficulty to implement the orders of this Court on the ground
of financial hardship being caused to exchequer which itself
is clear wilful disobedience. It is also contended that State
has taken the benefit flowing from the order dated 21.11.2014
and utilized the land owned by petitioners to widen the roads
and has issued the Government Order dated 08.12.2022
after dismissal of the IA for modification on 17.05.2022, which
amounts to over reaching the orders of this Court. It is also
contended that the positive direction issued by this Court to
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1293

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

the respondents to issue TDR as per TDR rules in favour of
complainants had not been complied which not only undermine
the dignity of this Court but also the authority of this Court. It is
further contended that market value determined for the subject
land for issuing TDR by no stretch of imagination can be the
market value prescribed under the provisions of Karnataka Town
and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules, 2016.
It is also submitted that contemnors in the IA No.98276 of 2021
had filed for modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 wherein
they have clearly admitted that in the event of TDR is to be
issued to the extent of 15 acres 39 guntas as per the orders of
this Court which is the extent of land acquired by the BBMP for
widening of the roads, it would result in issuance of TDR valued
at Rs.1,396 crores as per TDR rules and yet determined the
value under the notices dated 10.06.2024 diametrically opposite
to the stand already taken by them. Hence, contending that
respondents are acting in violation of the orders of this Court
wilfully and as such they are liable to be proceeded with and
punished for wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.11.2014,
17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.
1.3 On being notified contesting respondents have filed affidavits
of compliance in the respective petitions. Shri Jairam N.,
Commissioner, BDA has stated that BBMP had proposed to
grant Development Rights Certificate (DRC/TDR) in lieu of
utilisation of Bengaluru Palace ground for “widening of Bellary
road from BDA junction to Mekhri Circle” and in this regard
the BBMP has issued the provisional acceptance order dated
07.06.2024 and in response to the recommendations by the
BBMP, the BDA has approved the issuance of DRC/TDR on
10.06.2024 whereunder the details of the DRC has been
enumerated. It is further contended that same is in compliance
with the order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024. It
is further stated that as per the recommendations of the BBMP,
the petitioners have been served notice dated 10.06.2024 by
BDA calling upon them to hand over the physical possession
of the lands to the officials of BBMP, apart from informing them
to hand over personal bonds simultaneously, to enable them to
collect DRC. It is also stated that as indicated in the notice the
1294 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

officials of BBMP and BDA were present at Bengaluru Palace
grounds on the appointed date and time to take possession
of the lands, but petitioners had failed to appear and as such
a joint mazar was drawn on 18.06.2024 by noting physical
possession of the land was not taken and personal bonds was
not furnished by the petitioners.
1.4 It is further stated that one more opportunity was extended to
the petitioners to collect the approved DRC and a notice dated
26.06.2024 was issued in this regard and again the petitioners
had failed to appear on the appointed place and time for handing
over possession of the land. It is stated that possession of the
subject land was taken on 01.07.2024 and respective authorities
though were ready to handover DRC to the petitioners, they
failed to appear and receive the same. Hence, it is contended
that at no point of time the said respondent had any intention
to wilfully disobey the orders of this Court and have tendered
unconditional apology for the delay that has occasioned in
implementing the orders of this Court. Contending that delay was
neither deliberate or intentional they have prayed for dismissal
of the contempt petitions.
1.5 Mr. Tushar Giri Nath, Chief Commissioner, BBMP has filed an
affidavit of compliance dated 17.03.2024 stating thereunder that
in compliance of the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022,
the Government of Karnataka through decision of Cabinet
decided on 14.03.2024 to utilise 15 acres 39 guntas namely
the subject land for road widening and also decided to issue
the TDR as per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning
Act, 1961 and the TDR Rules and in furtherance of the same
Government Order dated 15.03.2024 came to be issued. It is
further stated that as per the said Government Order the BBMP
would implement the orders of this Court by issuance of TDR/
DRC as per rules. It is further stated that out of 15 acres 39
guntas only an extent of 1,217.41 sq. meter has been actually
utilised for the road widening purposes and the entire land
would be utilised after issuance of DRC/TDR as per rules. It is
further stated that at no point of time the respondent had any
intention to wilfully disobey the orders of this Court and have
tendered unconditional apology for the delay in implementing
the orders of this Court.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1295

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

1.6 Sri Jairam N., Commissioner, BDA had initially filed counter
affidavit on 18.03.2024 in contempt petition No. 688 of
2021 contending thereunder that on the basis of the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 passed by this Court, the
Government of Karnataka had taken a decision on 14.03.2024 to
utilise 15 acres 39 guntas namely subject land for road widening
subject to grant of DRC/TDR and as such Government Order
dated 15.03.2024 came to be issued. It is further submitted
that BDA is the planning authority as per the KTP Act and said
authority would issue Development Rights Certificate-DRC after
receiving recommendation by the public authority. It is further
stated that at no point of time the contemnor had any intention
to wilfully disobey the orders passed by this Court.
1.7 The Chief Commissioner of BBMP has filed further affidavit
on 28.07.2024 in contempt petition No. 555-556 of 2024
narrating the sequential events culminating in the orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 apart from narrating the
purported details about issuance of DRC/ TDR to the claimants.
The sum and substance of the narration is pursuant to the
orders passed by this Court, notices had been issued to the
petitioners and except Smt. Deepamalini Devi none of the
petitioners had turned up to hand over physical possession of
15 acres 17.5 guntas of land, as a result thereof another notice
dated 26.06.2024 came to be issued and on the appointed
date 01.07.2024 none had appeared and after identifying the
subject land i.e. 15 acres 17.5 guntas by metes and bonds
by the survey wing of the revenue department possession of
subject land was taken by BBMP on 01.07.2024. In paragraph
5 of the said affidavit the sequential events leading to the
issuance of DRC/TDR has been narrated and the summary
of the same is to the effect that the BDA was the authority to
issue/deal with Form No.3 and thereupon DRC/TDR and after
the amendment to the KTCP Act in 2021 the BBMP public
authority became the authority to issue/deal with form No.1
and 3 and after the amendment the matter stood transferred
to BBMP from BDA for further action as per the notification
dated 23.09.2022 and accordingly notice came to be issued
to the claimants on 21.03.2024. It is also stated that there
were exchange of correspondence between the BDA and
the claimants whereunder it is clearly admitted that 15 acres
1296 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

17.05 guntas is the land utilised/to be utilised for road widening
purposes based on the survey settlement dated 22.04.2024. It
is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner (TDR) BBMP
vide order dated 22.04.2024 after considering all the claims
and objections determined and finalised the extent of land
of various claimants. It is further stated that on the basis of
the request of BBMP the Government passed an order dated
24.05.2024 permitting BBMP to utilise the land ad measuring
15 acres 17.5 guntas for road widening and determined the
value of the land at Rs. 11 crores for the entire land covered
under the acquisition namely under BPAT and determined the
compensation of subject land in proportion to the same value for
issuance of DRC/TDR to be issued to the claimants. The Deputy
Commissioner (TDR) after considering the objections raised
to the order dated 24.05.2024 while rejecting the objections of
the claimants/petitioners by order dated 06.06.2024 held the
“market value” of the subject land cannot be beyond 2 lakhs
and as such applied the said value for issuance of TDR. In
other words, factor taken into consideration for determining
the market value of the subject land is on the premise that
land had stood vested with the State Government under the
BPAT whereunder the total value of the entire land has been
computed at Rs.11 crores namely for 472 acres 16 guntas and
proportionate value is to be considered for the subject land
which is the part of the larger extent and as such justifying
the order dated 06.06.2024, the notices were issued to the
petitioners/claimants to accept the DRC/TDR as per value
determined thereunder and contending orders of this Court
had been complied they have sought for contempt proceedings
being dropped or petitions being dismissed.
1.8 The complainant/petitioner in contempt petition No.716 of 2023
has filed a rejoinder/affidavit dated 08.07.2024 reiterating the
contentions raised in the contempt petitions and also contending
the development that have taken place pursuant to the order
dated 19.03.2024 and has highlighted the issue regarding
reduction of the extent of land and determination of the market
value at Rs. 120.68 per sq. meter as against the guidance
value of Rs. 2,83,500 (for Bellary Road) and 2,04,000 (for
Jay Mahal Road) per sq. metre as fixed under Section 45-B
of The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. It is also contended that
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1297

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

DRC/TDR which was forwarded through post and handed over
to the minor daughter of the first petitioner would not absolve
the liability of the respondents contemnors to comply with the
orders of this Court in substance.
1.9 The petitioner in contempt petition No.578 of 2022 has also
filed a rejoinder affidavit in response to counter affidavit filed
by respondent no.3 whereunder it has been contended that at
all relevant point of time and in various forum the ownership
rights over the subject land has been declared to be that of
the petitioner and as such there is no dispute with regard to
the ownership of the land and none of the legal heirs of Late
Shri SDN Wadiyar could object to it either. Contending that the
official respondents have failed to comply with the order dated
21.11.2014 the petitioner have sought for appropriate action
being taken against the respondents.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING:
Heard the arguments of the Learned Senior Advocates assisted
by the Learned Advocates for appearing parties, perused
the entire case papers and having bestowed our careful
consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are
of the view that following point would arise for our consideration
“Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and
19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully
disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors?”

PREFACE:
1.10 In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. It means knowingly-
intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full
knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude
casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine
inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent
actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he
knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too
well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the
action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not
be maintainable.
1298 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1.11 The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the
decree or implementation of an order for which alternative
remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is
given to maintain court’s dignity and majesty of law. In Sudhir
Vasudeva Vs. George Ravishekeran1 this Court has observed
that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders
in relation to which contempt has been alleged. That the Court
hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its
enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or
orders of which contempt has been alleged.
1.12 The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a
decision of this Court. What would be relevant is the “wilful
disobedience”. Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard
to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is
a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction
can be clutched.
1.13 Having adumbrated position of law enumerated by this Court
we proceed to deal with the alleged acts of contempt said to
have been committed by the contemnors in the instant petitions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. The background in which the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
came to be passed can be succinctly narrated as under:
Undisputedly the land measuring 15 acres and 39 guntas (hereinafter
referred to as ‘subject land’) and the adjoining properties collectively
measuring 456 acres belonged to the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore.
The legal heirs of deceased Maharaja of Mysore amongst others
and/or claiming through them are before this Court alleging wilful
disobedience of the aforestated orders.
3. The State enacted the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer)
Act 1996 (herein after referred to as “BPAT” Act) to acquire the
Bangalore Palace and adjacent land including all the buildings around
on the grounds enumerated therein. The constitutional validity of the

1 [2014) 4 SCR 27 : (2014) 3 SCC 373
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1299

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

same was unsuccessfully challenged by the legal heirs of Maharaja
of Mysore before the High Court of Karnataka and an ad interim
order of Stay of the operation of the Act came to be passed by the
High Court on 10.12.1996. On conclusion of hearing writ petitions
came to be dismissed vide Order dated 31.03.1997 and four weeks’
time was granted to the writ petitioners to file an appeal before
this Court and interim order granted on 10.12.1996 which was in
operation till disposal of the writ petitions came to be continued till
then. Subsequently, appeals came to be filed, and this Court by Order
dated 22.04.1997 granted stay of dispossession and the Special
Leave Petitions came to be admitted on 30.04.1997 and order of
status quo came to be passed pending disposal of the appeals. The
said appeals are pending before this Court.
4. In Civil Appeal No. 3303 of 1997, an interlocutory application came
to be filed by the State of Karnataka seeking permission of this Court
to widen the Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road and to complete the
same by utilising 15 acres and 39 guntas of the Bengaluru Palace
ground; and, to pay compensation to the above land as per the
calculation made in the original award. Appellants in various appeals
virtually conceded to the needs of the State to widen the road and
expressed their willingness to accept the proposal of BBMP made in
its letter dated 26.12.2009, whereunder BBMP had agreed to issue
TDR for the extent of land acquired as per the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act and the TDR guidelines, subject to final decision
of this Court. Having regard to the fact that the State did not grant
its approval to the proposal mooted by the BBMP and had instead
offered to pay compensation as per the rates relevant at the time
of passing of the order, this Court disposed of the said application
by order dated 21.11.2014 and permitted the road widening subject
to the condition that the appellants would be given the TDR as per
TDR Rules. Order dated 21.11.2014 reads:
“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
1300 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the present appeal and the connected appeals shall be
given TDR for widening of the road as per TDR Rules.”
(Emphasis Supplied by us)

5. The respondent-authorities were required to implicitly implement the
aforesaid order or in other words issue TDR as per the extant TDR
rules. This Court in Rita Markanday v/s Surjit Singh Arora2 has
taken the view that even if the parties have not filed an undertaking
before the Court, but if the Court is induced to sanction a particular
course of action or inaction on the basis of the representation of
such a party and the Court ultimately finds that the party never
intended to act on such representation or such representation was
false then the party would be guilty of committing contempt of court.
In fact, this Court having heard the parties on merits and taking into
consideration the totality of circumstances into consideration had
passed a positive direction to the respondents to issue TDR a per
TDR Rules. However, under the guise of the said order requires
to be modified, a valiant attempt was made by the State after
Seven (7) years by filing an interlocutory application on 12.08.2021
in IA No.98276 of 2021 seeking modification of the order dated
21.11.2014 wherein it was specifically prayed that the order dated
21.11.2014 may be clarified or modified, with a further prayer to
direct the instrumentalities of the State to pay compensation as
per the calculation made in the original award in the Act of 1996
in similar terms of the order of this Court dated 15.02.1999 passed
in IA No.2.
5.1 Aforesaid application came to be rejected after adjudication
vide order dated 17.05.2022 whereunder this Court reiterated
its earlier order dated 21.11.2014 and observed there was no
reason to modify the said order. The Order dated 17.05.2022
reads:
“We have noticed from the order dated 21.11.2014
that this court has allowed the I.A. No. 13 of 2011
filed by the applicant subject to the condition that the
appellants will be given TDR for widening of the road
as per the TDR Rules. We do not see any reason to

2 [1996] Supp. 7 SCR 56 : (1996) 6 SCC 14
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1301

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

modify the said order. It is for the applicant(s) to
take action in terms of the order dated 21.11.2014.
The I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 stands rejected.”
(emphasis supplied by us)

5.2 This Court in Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang,3 has held
that contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in every case where
the conduct of a contemnor is such as would interfere with the
due course of justice.
5.3 This Court exercising contempt jurisdiction would not enter
into question which have not been dealt with and decided in
the judgment or order, violation of which is complained by the
applicant. This Court will consider whether the direction issued
in the judgment or order is complied in true sense or in its letter
and spirit and would not embark upon the journey of examining
as to what the judgment or order should have contained.
The primary concern would be as to whether there has been
deliberate default or if there is any ambiguity in the directions
issued therein, in which event it would be better to direct the
parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for
clarification instead of clutching the contempt jurisdiction. A
plain reading of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
supra would indicate that direction issued to the respondents
is to the effect that TDR had to be issued as per TDR rules.
There was no ambiguity or vagueness in the said orders. It is
also not the case of the contemnors that any doubt being there
in the said orders.
5.4 However, on the basis of an assumed doubt having arisen in
the mind of the State that too after seven years of the passing
of the order (dated 21.11.2014) and to stave off the impending
contempt proceedings, an Interlocutory Application I.A. No.
98276 of 2021 referred to supra came to be filed for modification
of the said order dated 21.11.2014 primarily on the ground of
financial hardship amongst other grounds, which came to be
rejected.

3 [2021] 1 SCR 389 : (2021) 15 SCC 338
1302 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

5.5 It is apt and appropriate to note at this juncture itself that a
specific plea came to be raised by the State in paragraph 9 of
the aforesaid application, that if the TDR certificate is issued
as per the order dated 21.11.2014 to the extent of 15 acres 39
guntas the notional value of the same would be Rs.1,396 crores.
At the cost of burdening this order the relevant plea raised by
the respondent in that regard is extracted herein below:
“9. The Respondents/Applicant-State of Karnataka
respectfully submits that area of land sought to be
acquired vide I.A. No. 13/2011 is an extent of 15 acres
39 guntas. If the compensation was required to be paid
in terms of the Award passed under the Act of 1996 for
the extent of 15 acres 39 guntas, the compensation
payable would be Rs.37,28,813. However, if the TDR
certificate is to be issued for the said extent of
15 acres 39 guntas, it would result in 13,91,742
Sq. ft. additional built up area constructible in the
city of Bengaluru and approximately it would be
equivalent to notional value of Rs.1,396 crores.
It is also relevant to note that TDR once granted is
transferable. If the appellants were to be given TDR,
the same may immediately be transferred by the
appellants to any other parties/ builders. In event of
the final judgment going against the appellants, then
it would not be possible to recover the value of TDR
from the appellants.”
(Emphasis Supplied by us)

6. On passing of the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2022 it was incumbent
upon the respondents-authorities to implement the aforesaid two
orders without a demur as they are crystal clear. However, same
was conveniently ignored or in other words the authorities seem to
have gone into deep sleep at least till 05.04.2017 on which date a
notification came to be issued by BBMP for carrying out the work
of widening the road.
7. One another factor which cannot go unnoticed in the background of
affidavits filed by both the parties is, that in respect of the subject
property, Writ Petitions in Public Interest had also been filed seeking
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1303

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

widening of Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road before the High
Court of Karnataka wherein several orders came to be passed by
referring to the orders passed by this Court referred to supra, of
which contempt is alleged. Hence, we deem it proper to refer to the
order dated 07.09.2016 passed in W.P. No. 42927 of 2015 which
would have direct bearing on the present proceedings and it reads:
“We, therefore, direct the State Government to grant
necessary clearance to the BBMP for widening the road
and issue TDR certificates to the land owners in terms
of the Order of the Supreme Court of India as per the
existing TDR rules.
We trust and hope that the widening of the road will be
completed within a year.”
(Emphasis supplied by us)

8. For complying the aforesaid direction an attempt was made to issue
notification dated 05.04.2017 namely to carry out the widening of
Jayamahal Road from Mekhri Circle up to Cantonment Railway Station
and Bellary Road from BDA Junction to Mekhri Circle. After two (2)
years i.e., on 17.07.2019, the State Government issued a Government
Order permitting BBMP to issue TDR to the concerned land owners.
Hence, a communication dated 29.08.2019 was addressed by the
complainants to the Commissioner BBMP seeking to expedite the
process of issuance of TDR and documents in support of their claim
were also forwarded. However, TDR’s were not issued for no reason
at all. Thus, from 21.11.2014 till 17.07.2019 there was absolute
silence on the part of contemnors and there is not even a whisper
in the affidavits filed by the respondents in this regard viz., as to
the reason for non-implementation of the Order dated 21.11.2014.
Knowing fully, the consequences of non-implementing the orders of
this Court, yet respondents consciously ignored to comply with the
directions issued by this Court. After four (4) years notification came
to be issued on 05.04.2017 to widen the road. Again, respondents
went into deep slumber for two (2) years i.e., till 17.07.2019 date
of government order issued resolving to issue TDR in favour of
landowners. Silence on the part of the contemnors from 05.04.2017
to 17.07.2019 has to be termed as deliberate with full knowledge
of consequences flowing therefrom. Thus, delay of five (5) years in
1304 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

implementation of the Order dated 21.11.2014 till 17.07.2019 not only
remains unexplained but also prima-facie seems to be intentional
and not bonafide or there being any genuine inability and this is
the first stage of intentional delay. This Court in Ram kishan Vs.
Tarun Bajaj & Ors4 has opined that deliberate conduct of a person
means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on
his part. Though Government Order dated 17.07.2019 came to be
issued, that too after five (5) years after passing of orders (direction)
by this Court to issue TDR’s, yet it did not fructify. Thus, irresistible
conclusion will have to be drawn that non-implementation of the
orders of this Court was deliberate and intentional act on the part
of contemnors.
9. From the pleadings of these proceedings it would also emerge, yet
another Writ Petition No. 6585 of 2020 (PIL) had also been filed
for expediting the process for road widening and an order came to
be passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 07.01.2021 in that
regard whereunder the State Government was directed to report
the compliance by implementing with the directions contained in
paragraph 10 of this Court’s Order dated 21.11.2014 and paragraph
12 of High Court Order dated 07.09.2016 passed in Writ Petition
No. 42927 of 2015 and for reporting such compliance, the State
Government was granted time till 15.02.2021. State Government was
also called upon to produce records and documents depicting grant
of TDR certificates in terms of the order of this Court as well as the
order of the High Court. However, the State Government instead of
complying with the Orders passed by this Court and the High Court
and initially having made a show of its earnestness to comply with
the order, had submitted before the High Court in Writ Petition No.
6585 of 2020 on 17.02.2021 through the learned Advocate General
that it would move this Court seeking modification of the Order
dated 21.11.2014. Thus, Government Order came to be issued
on 23.02.2021 wherein it has been stated that State Cabinet had
decided to resile from its earlier decisions taken on 11.07.2019 vide
Subject No. C435/2019 (pursuant to which the State Government
had issued Government Order dated 17.07.2019 bearing No. MA.AA.
EE.-MNY/2018 permitting issuance of TDR) and had resolved to file

4 [2014] 1 SCR 538 : 2014 (16) SCC 204 para 12
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1305

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

an application for modification of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and
pursuant to the decision so taken, I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 came to be
filed in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997 and connected appeals by the State of
Karnataka on 12.08.2021 as already noted hereinabove. The present
contempt petitions came to be filed on 17.08.2021 and this Court
by Order dated 03.01.2022 directed the listing of these contempt
petitions along with I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 filed for modification of
the order dated 21.11.2014. Said application came to be heard and
disposed of by this Court by Order dated 17.05.2022 by rejecting
the same as already noticed herein above. Atleast then orders
dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 ought to have been implemented.
However, the Respondents seem to have dragged their feet and
for no justifiable reason whatsoever have not implemented the said
orders. Thus, explicitly there has been wilful disobedience of orders
of this Court and respondents having failed in their attempt to seek
modification of order dated 21.11.2014 cannot take umbrage under
any circumstances whatsoever for not implementing the orders of
this Court, particularly when clarification/modification prayer was put
to rest on 17.05.2022 by this Court.
10. The wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, at this stage is
manifest and for no reason whatsoever it can be construed that
respondents were under any doubt or there was lack of clarity in
the orders of this Court. Infact the order dated 21.11.2014 is clear
and explicit. However, under the guise of implementation of said
order would result in grant of TDR to the extent of Rs. 1396 crores
(the value of which is in serious dispute) modification was sought
and said attempt made after Seven (7) years had also failed. This
Court in the matter of All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v/s
Raghabendra Singh and Others5 has taken a view that disobedience
in a particular case would be continued as wilful based on facts
and circumstances unfolded in a given case. Judicial orders are
to be properly understood and complied with, even negligence
and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when
the attention of the person is drawn to the Court’s order and its
implications. In the instant case respondents being aware of the
consequences of non-implementation of the order of this Court dated
21.11.2014 had sought for modification on the ground of financial

5 [2007] 3 SCR 816 : (2007) 11 SCC 374
1306 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

hardship and had also failed. Hence, they are estopped from feigning
ignorance for not implementing the orders of this Court or not being
aware of the consequences of its implementations.
11. In the Writ Petition No. 6585 of 2020 aforestated which was pending
before the High Court of Karnataka, the State Government dragged
its feet by taking adjournment after adjournment on one pretext or
the other and had projected a picture of its earnestness to implement
the orders of this Court, though parallelly it had resiled from its earlier
order dated 17.07.2019 by issuance of Government Order dated
23.02.2021 and later filed I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 on 12.08.2021 for
modification of Order dated 21.11.2014 which ended in its dismissal
also on 17.05.2022. It would be apposite to note that by Government
Order No. UDD 269 MNY 2018 dated 08.12.2022 it was resolved to
drop the proposal for widening of the roads itself and as such BBMP
withdrew the proposal made to the State Government on 30.03.2009
in this regard which came to be accepted by Government Order
dated 08.12.2022. Strangely and curiously it may be noted that the
BBMP took a contrary stand before the High Court in the pending
Writ Petition No.6585 of 2020 by filing affidavits which reflected
about the progress of the steps taken by BBMP to widen the road
or in other words, State and its authorities or instrumentalities were
blowing hot and cold. On the one hand State was depicting a picture
before the High Court of implementing the Orders of this Court and
simultaneously State and its authorities were filing application for
modification of the order passed in 2014 and parallelly assuring the
High Court that it was keen on implementing the orders of this Court,
though it was postponing the implementation and dragging its feet
on one pretext or the other and eventually shelved the proposal to
widen the road, though substantial progress had been made to widen
the road for which purpose possession of land had also been taken.
12. Turning our attention to the core issue on hand namely as to whether
there has been compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 and
17.05.2022 by the respondents, we will have to answer it in the
negative and also further hold that there has been wilful disobedience,
for the reasons assigned hereinbelow:
“(i). In compliance of the Order dated 21.11.2014 a
communication came to be issued by the Special Deputy
Commissioner Land Acquisition and TDR BBMP requesting
the applicants to provide an indemnity bond following which
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1307

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

the relinquishment deed would be executed and registered
and thereafter TDR would be issued, yet same was not
issued though land owners complied with the demand
made by BBMP;
(ii). The State Government though passed a Government
Order No. ma.aa.ee./269/MNY/2018 dated 17.07.2019
permitting issuance of TDR yet, same was not issued;
(iii). Though a communication was addressed by the State
Government to the Commissioner BBMP on 29.08.2019
to expedite the process of issuance of TDR yet, TDR was
not issued;”
13. The above sequential events would clearly reflect that the State
Government was projecting before this Court of its bona fides to
implement the Orders of this Court and having failed in its attempt
to seek modification of the Order dated 21.11.2014 on account of
application for modification having been dismissed on 17.05.2022, yet
during the interregnum arrived at a conclusion that the implementation
of the Order of this Court would be neigh impossible and vide
Government Order No. UDD269MNY2018 (Part-4) dated 23.02.2021
which was pursuant to the Cabinet decision taken on 18.02.2021 vide
subject No.C.82/21 the State had dropped the proposal to widen the
road and thereby had failed to comply with the orders of this Court.
14. On present contempt petitions being filed in 2022 an attempt has
been made by the authorities to project a picture as though all efforts
were made to implement the orders of the Court. Two stages in which
there has been wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court are:

FIRST STAGE
i. After the order was passed on 21.11.2014 no steps
were taken to implement the said order in its letter
and spirit which ought to have been at least till 2017
i.e., issuance of notification dated 05.04.2017 for
carrying out widening of roads;
ii. Though State Government issued order on 17.07.2019
permitting BBMP to issue TDR to the concerned land
owners, yet TDR was not issued despite all demands
of BBMP were complied by land owners:
1308 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

iii. From the date of order dated 21.11.2014 till an
application namely IA No. 798276 of 2021 was filed
for modification, the saga of pushing the file from
table to table and keeping the same idle for a long
period and conveniently ignoring the order of this
Court by not implementing the same in its true spirit
had continued for years or atleast till 17.07.2019;

SECOND STAGE
iv. After the order dated 17.05.2022 came to be passed
rejecting the application for modification/ clarification
yet the State and its authorities did not take steps to
implement the orders of this Court as expected of a
prudent litigant i.e., by the State which should have
acted as a model litigant.
15. In fact, this Court by Order dated 19.03.2024 with the hope that
respondents would purge in the contempt by implementing the
same in its letter & spirit had directed compliance of the Order dated
21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022. However, an additional condition was
imposed or in other words orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022
was tweaked by this Court. The direction so issued by this Court on
19.03.2024 reads:
“2. After some hearing, it is clear that the State shall issue
necessary TDR as directed by this Court on 21.11.2014
and on 17.05.2022. Taking note of the submissions of the
learned Advocate General, we direct compliance within a
period of eight weeks from today.”
“3. Order dated 2 1.11.2014 does not specifically enable
sale or transfer of the TDR, but directs grant of TDR
as per Rules. To secure interests of all parties pending
disposal of the Civil Appeals, we direct the recipient of
the TDR to undertake return of the consideration received
upon any sale or transfer of the TDR in the event the
Civil Appeal(s) before Supreme Court are dismissed.
An affidavit of Undertaking to this effect in the nature of
personal bond(s) shall be furnished by the recipient of the
TDR to the State before the sale or transfer of the TDR.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1309

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

We have not expressed any opinion with regard to inter
se dispute between the parties.”
16. A valiant attempt has been made by the contemnors to contend that
orders of this Court has been complied by passing of the order dated
15.03.2024 and issuance of consequential notices and Government
Orders.
In the notices issued on 10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the authorities
seems to be projecting a picture that the possession of the subject
land has not been delivered and this is nothing but suppressing the
true facts and making a false statement before this Court namely
suppressio veri suggestio falsi. We say so for the simple reason
that in the notices referred to hereinabove the respondents are
attempting to give a picture as though possession of the land in
question has not been taken, whereas in the Government Order
dated 08.12.2022, it has been specifically mentioned that a sum of
Rs. 56 crores has been provided for widening of the Bellary Road
and Jayamahal Road and a Government Order No. UDD 56 MNY
2020 dated 04.03.2020 in the form of tender is handed over to M/s
JMC Organization by issuance of a work order. The said Government
order would also indicate that the road project is in progress. In
fact, in the affidavit filed through Additional Chief Secretary Shri
Rakesh Singh, it has been stated in paragraph 13 that the work is
almost complete from Mekhri Circle to Jayamahal and because of
the untimely rain, the completion got delayed.
17. In Writ Petition No.6585 of 2020, an affidavit dated 20.01.2023 came
to be filed by BBMP through Smt. Priyadarshini, Executive Engineer,
Road Infrastructure (East) BBMP, which came to be recorded by the
High Court on 03.02.2023 by noticing that in paragraph 6 of the said
affidavit, the deponent has made a statement that the road widening
work is in progress. In fact, photographs were also appended to
the said affidavit as document No.5. It was deposed in unequivocal
terms that the road widening work has commenced and same
came also to be recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Karnataka by observing that “it can safely be said that necessary
steps are taken by BBMP for widening of roads and the work is in
progress at present”. It was further observed by the High Court that
the BBMP can certainly explore some effective means and ways to
see that that road widening work is done in a speedy manner and is
1310 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

not delayed on account of lame excuses or lethargy on the part of
some officer of the BBMP or the executing agencies. Hence, BBMP
was directed to file further progress report. A further affidavit was
also filed on 13.03.2023 which came to be recorded by the Division
Bench of the High Court on 29.09.2023 whereunder it was noticed
that in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it had been stated that the
95% of the road widening project is completed in all respects and now
there is free flow of traffic on the stretch, particularly, with reference
to the stretch on Bellary Road to Kaveri theatre junction. The status
report which was called upon to be filed by BBMP resulted in filing
further affidavit of the Executive Engineer which again came to be
recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court on 19.04.2023
whereunder it was stated that in respect of different phases of the
road widening, the project is complete to the extent of 25%, 95%,
50% and 60% respectively.
17.1 We are compelled to note or make references to the aforestated
orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka, since the issue
of road widening has been the core issue, and on the one hand
the State is contending possession of the subject land was
not taken or it was taken only in July 2024 and countered by
the complainants that possession was taken long back. The
pleadings above referred to would also leave no manner of
doubt in the mind of this Court of possession of these lands
having been taken either by the State or BBMP and same being
in their possession since long, it is too late in the day for the
State and its instrumentalities to contend that after the issuance
of notices on 10.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 the possession of
the subject land has been taken. It is for this reason we have
held that the contemnors are guilty of supressing the truth and
suggesting falsehood.
18. A theoretical implementation would not amount to compliance. The
implementation of the order should be substantial and said order/s
should clearly reflect the intention of the authorities of its bonafides,
as otherwise it has to be necessarily held that the act of State and its
officers are not bonafide but tainted or malafide. Lex non cogit ad
impossibilia- Law does not compel a person to do the impossible
(AIR 1996 SC 753) Unless an order is absolutely impossible to be
executed or carried out, the authorities cannot be heard to contend
that financial burden would be a hurdle to implement the orders of
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1311

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

this Court. If at all, there were any such hurdles, it was always open
to authorities to approach this Court to seek appropriate orders
and an attempt made in that regard had also failed. In the instant
case, after having kept quiet for a period of almost 07 years i.e.,
from 21.11.2014 till 12.08.2021 (till filing of IA No.98276 of 2021),
no effective steps were taken by the State and its instrumentalities
to implement the orders of this Court except exchange of inter-
departmental correspondence which is already noticed herein above.
19. The affidavits of the Commissioner of BDA and Chief Commissioner
of BBMP would reflect as though there is due compliance of the
aforesaid two Orders passed by this Court and this is not only in clear
violation of the Orders 21.11.2014 but also order dated 17.05.2022
whereunder this Court in unequivocal terms or had categorically
directed the respondents’ herein to issue TDR as per the TDR Rules
and nothing short or long of it. In other words, the TDR which was
required to be issued ought to have been as per the Karnataka Town
and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules, 2016.
This Court by order dated 19.03.2024 after hearing the matter for
some time had passed the aforesaid order.
20. A perusal of the same would indicate that this Court in no uncertain
terms and categorically has held that State should issue necessary
TDR as directed by this Court on 21.11,2014 and 17.05.22. In fact,
specific direction was issued that there should be compliance within
eight (8) weeks. It was also ordered that the recipient of the TDR
should undertake to return the consideration received upon sale or
transfer of the TDR in the event of the civil appeals before this Court
are dismissed and called upon the complainants to file an affidavit
of undertaking to this effect in the nature of personal bond(s) to be
furnished by the recipient of the TDR to the state before the sale or
transfer of the TDR. We deem it appropriate to note at this juncture
that order dated 19.03.2024 was passed for implementing the
orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 and there was no occasion
or necessity for this Court to impose further conditions which in
effect would amount to tweaking the orders dated 21.11.2014 and
17.05.2022. Infact there was no such prayer made by the State or
its instrumentalities by filing appropriate applications. Attempt made
in that regard by filing I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 had already been
rejected by this Court by Order dated 17.05.2022 itself. Yet another
reason which requires to be assigned for supporting such a view,
1312 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

emanates from the fact that State itself has admitted in the I.A. No.
98276 of 2021 that if TDR is to be issued as per TDR Rules the
market value will have to be determined as per TDR Rules, which
in effect would mean value of the land has to be determined as per
the value fixed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Accordingly,
the calculation had been made and pleaded financial hardship.
Though, while applying the market value as fixed under the Stamp
Act, 1957, 60% of the value has been deducted which we are not in
agreement for reasons detailed herein below, yet, the fact remains
that State itself has admitted and adopted the value fixed under
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 to fix the value of TDR to be issued.
We would hasten to add that Civil Appeals relating to challenge
of acquisition of larger area (456 acres) is still pending before the
court and sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of the State
can be taken care of at the time of passing final order. Necessarily,
the issuance of TDR as per TDR Rules would be subject to final
outcome of Civil Appeals and as such filing of an undertaking by
the recipients of TDR as opined by our Order dated 19.03.2024 is
not warranted. Hence, we deem it proper to delete the additional
condition imposed by this Court by order dated 19.03.2024 and
making it explicitly clear that TDR issued by the competent authority
would be subject to final orders that may be passed in Civil Appeals
pending before larger bench and this order would have no bearing
on the pending appeals.
20.1 Though, initially there was resistance to the order dated
21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, the State and its machinery
seems to have understood the gravity of the situation and to
fall in line with the further directions issued by this Court, has
made a feeble attempt on 19.03.2024 to demonstrate before
this Court of having complied with the orders passed by this
Court which is alleged to have been wilfully disobeyed by
the contemnors. After having dragged their feet for the last
10 years and having exhausted all remedies to stave off the
orders dated 21.11.2024, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024, the
respondent authorities or contemnors have filed affidavits
by stating thereunder that orders of this Court have been
complied. The affidavits dated 09.07.2024 filed by Shri Uma
Shankar Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Government of Karnataka- Respondent No.1
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1313

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

would indicate that the deponent is depicting the picture
of having complied with the orders dated 21.11.2014 and
17.05.2022 without any whisper with regard to the order
dated 19.03.2024. In fact the deponent has relied upon the
Government Order No. DPAR 68 PSR 2024 dated 24.05.2024
whereunder the TDR for 15 acres 17.5 guntas has been
resolved to be issued to the complainants by determining the
value as per the BPAT Act. The deponent also refers to the
order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
(TDR) who has again rested his oars on the Government
Order dated 24.05.2024 namely determining the value of the
land as per the value determined under the BPAT Act for the
entire land of 436 acres. Pursuant to the said orders the TDR
is said to have been forwarded to the complainant/claimant.
On this ground contemnors are seeking from being absolved
of the present proceedings or in other words seeking for
contempt proceedings being dropped and clearly admitting
there has been delay for which an unconditional apology
has been tendered.
20.2 The affidavit of compliance filed by respondent No.3 is as
vague, vagueness could be. Except enclosing the order No.
UDD 22 MNY 2023, Bengaluru dated 15.03.2024 whereby
it has been resolved to utilise 15 acres 39 guntas of the
Bengaluru Palace for road widening subject to the grant of
TDR and undertaking that BPAT would implement the orders
nothing further revolves around this affidavit.
20.3 The compliance affidavit of Respondent No.4 namely the
Commissioner of BDA would indicate the steps taken by
the said authorities to implement the order namely issuance
of notice dated 10.06.2024 and reply given thereto by the
noticee and the purported joint mahazar having been drawn
at the spot for taking possession of the subject land, nothing
more turns around.
20.4 The compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent
Nos.5 to 6 is in same line with the affidavit filed by the
Respondent No.4.
20.5 We find from the afore-stated affidavits that the consistent
stand taken by the State from day one till date is to the
1314 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

effect that: (i) petitioners were not entitled for the TDR; (ii) if
at all they are entitled to, then they would be entitled to the
compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act or the value
of the land as fixed by the ULC authorities or the value of
the land as determined by the authorities determining the
wealth tax; (iii) even if value is to be determined and TDR
is to be furnished the valuation of the land cannot be as per
the value fixed for the adjacent lands under Section 45B of
the Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 and the value is to be fixed
as per the value of the land determined under the BPAT
Act namely 11 crores for 472 acres and proportionately for
15 acres 39 guntas the value of the subject land has to be
determined.
21. Having dragged its feet for years in implementing the Orders of this
Court the respondents seem to have conceptualized a novel method
to over-reach the Orders of this Court and we say so for the simple
reason that affidavit of the compliance does not indicate or clearly
admit that the TDR certificate being issued is in accordance with
the extant TDR Rules but it is on an assumed value. The notice
dated 10.06.2024 which was preceded by Government Order dated
24.05.2024 issued to the petitioners reflect that market value of the
land acquired has been determined @ Rs.120.68/ per square meter
inclusive of interest, which notice has also been duly replied to by the
petitioners on 13.06.2024 contending valuation made is contrary to
TDR Rules. The Government Order dated 24.05.2024 being contrary
to the direction issued by this Court cannot be accepted or the value
of the subject land as determined thereunder to be correct, or the
value indicated therein can be taken as a determination as per TDR
Rules and it is diametrically opposite to the TDR Rules. We say so
for reasons more than one. Firstly, the gazette notification dated
27.09.2023 issued in exercise of power vested under Section 45B of
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 by the Government of Karnataka fixing the
guidance value of the properties for the purposes of registration which
has been appended to the counter affidavit filed by the complainants
would indicate that the value of the subject property is fixed at Rs.
2,83,500 per square meter on Bellary Road, and for Jayamahal
Road it is fixed at Rs. 2,04,000 per square meter (see convenience
compilation filed on 21.07.2024 at pages 248 and 249) and this value
is not adopted. Secondly, the applicable rules for issuance of TDR is
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1315

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

known and called as Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit
of Development Rights) Rules 2016. Section 2(i) defines ‘Market
Value’ to mean the value determined as per the guidance value of
land in accordance with Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act,
1957. Thus, the TDR has to be issued as per the guidance value
fixed under the Stamp Act and it is for this precise reason the State
while determining the market value of the subject land had adopted
the guidance value as specified under the Stamp Act for purposes of
calculation/determination under I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 for pleading
financial hardship. The State Government cannot now retrace its
steps in this regard and determine the value of the subject property
at its whims or fancies or on any imaginary value for the purposes
of issuance of TDR. Thirdly, the market value of the property has to
be prescribed under Rule 4 of TDR Rules, which clearly mandates
the “market value” of a property to be as prescribed under Section
45B of Stamp Act, as the basis for issuance of TDR. In fact, this
Court by Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 in
no uncertain terms has ordered or directed the respondents to issue
TDR as per TDR Rules. Fourthly, in the interlocutory application (I.A.
No. 98276 of 2021) filed for modification by the State, it has been
specifically pleaded by the State itself that “if the compensation was
required to be paid in terms of the award passed under the Act of
1996, then for the extent of 15 acres and 39 guntas the compensation
payable would be Rs. 37,28,813. However, if the TDR certificate is
to be issued as per TDR rules for the said extent of 15 acres 39
guntas, it would result in 13,91,742 sq. feet additional built up area
constructable in the city of Bengaluru and approximately it would
be equivalent to notional value of Rs.1,396 crores” after deducting
60% of the guidance value. The State specifically pleaded that TDR
once granted is transferable and it would not be possible to recover
the value of the TDR from the appellants if it is transferred to other
parties/ builders, in the event of final judgment going against the
appellants. In fact, it is for this precise reason we have opined supra
that orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 was not required to be
tweaked by this Court by adding additional conditions. Fifthly, it is
to be noted that when value of adjacent and abutting land is fixed at
Rs. 2,83,500 per sq. meter and 2,04,000 per sq. meter respectively
under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the value of subject land
cannot be diminished below the said value. The State specifically
1316 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

sought for modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 whereunder
it was required to issue TDR as per TDR rules and wanted to pay
compensation as per the calculation in the original award of 1996 in
similar terms of the order dated 15.02.1999 passed on IA No.2 and
this has been categorically turned down or rejected by this Court by
order dated 17.05.2022. For these myriad reasons Government Order
dated 24.05.2024 cannot be accepted as substantial compliance
of the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 and it
stands rejected.
22. In fact, the State itself has categorically admitted in its Government
Order dated 23.02.2021 the value of the TDR to be issued in favour
of the claimants would be as under:
Total area 15 Acres 36 Guntas, Total 639 Guntas
639 x 1089 = 695871 sq. ft. x 2 = 1391742 sq. feet.
It is also admitted that the gross value is Rs.2,70,000 per Sq.
Meter. However, it has determined the value as 0.4 times of the
land value that is 1,08,000 per Sq. Meter on the premise that it is
to be construed as an agricultural land. This very plea came to be
raised for the modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 and it was
turned down by this Court by order dated 17.05.2022 and it was
reiterated that the TDR is required to be issued as per TDR Rules
namely by adopting market value of the land. The value of the land
cannot be anything less than market value as already determined
under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957. At the cost
of repetition it requires to be noticed that the State Government
itself has considered the market value as per guidance value at
Rs. 2,70,000 per sq. meter fixed under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
and has adopted 0.4 times of the said value to calculate the TDR
for the reason that the Bangalore Palace falls within agricultural
zone which cannot be market value under TDR Rules. No material
whatsoever has been placed by the State to depict that the subject
land is to be construed as falling within agricultural zone. In fact,
the subject property was utilized as a private residence of the then
Maharaja of Mysore since long number of years and it is situated
in the heart of city of Bangalore. There cannot be any cavial to the
fact that TDR is required to be issued as per TDR Rules. In fact,
not dwelling upon further on this aspect, it can be safely concluded
that valuation of the subject land even according to the State was
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1317

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

determined as per the guidance value then prevailing but restricted
it to 40% of the guidance value by treating it as agriculture land
without any basis whatsoever. The notifications issued under Section
45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act prescribes the guidance value and
this value alone ought to have been adopted and there cannot be
any reduction or subtraction in that regard. Thus, any amount of
plea raised by the contemnors on the ground of financial hardship
or otherwise would be in contravention of the Order passed by this
Court on 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024. Hence, we are
of the considered view that the State and its instrumentalities and/
or the competent authority being the BBMP is required to issue the
TDR as per the then prevailing guidance value fixed under Section
45B of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 namely 2,83,500 per sq. meter
for Bellary Road and 2,04,000 per sq. meter for Jayamahal road as
indicated under the notifications issued under Section 45B of the
Karnataka Stamp Act.
23. Yet the fact remains that subsequent to the same the State has
calculated the value of the TDR in terms of the Order dated 22.04.2024
and 06.06.2024 as approved by the provisional acceptance order
dated 07.06.2024, the correctness of which cannot be subject matter
of the present contempt proceedings and the value of subject land
as determined thereunder has not been accepted by this Court for
the reasons already indicated supra. No doubt by way of attempting
to purge in the contempt, these orders have been passed. The State
and its authorities have no doubt dragged their feet in implementing
the orders of the Court. However, there seems to be thin line of doubt
which has arisen in the mind of State and its authorities as regards
the valuation and in this direction if steps have been taken to protect
the interest of the revenue and several meetings have been held and
these aspects are placed before the State Cabinet and a decision
has been taken by the State cabinet, it cannot be construed or held
that State is not willing to implement the order and particularly in
the background of several orders having been passed though not
in consonance with the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022.
Hence, we deem it proper to extend one final opportunity to report
compliance within a time frame.
24. Since we have opined that the State and its authorities have
intentionally dragged its feet for long number of years and having
attempted to tap all the mirage remedies and left with no other option
1318 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and to stave off these proceedings have passed the orders dated
15.03.2024, 22.04.2024, 24.05.2024 and 10.06.2024 to utilise the
subject land for road widening, fixing the extent to which each of
the claimants would be entitled for compensation and to issue the
TDR on an estimate value which is not accepted by this Court, still
an opportunity to issue TDR’s as per market value as envisaged
under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 as observed hereinabove ought
to be extended to the respondents/contemnors.
25. Hence, we direct the respondent authorities to issue the TDR as per
the value noticed hereinabove in favour of the respective claimants
within six (6) weeks from today. We also make it abundantly clear
that issuance of the TDR certificates would be subject to further
orders that may be passed by this Court while disposing of the
appeals which are pending before the larger Bench and both
parties are at liberty to bring this fact to the notice of the court
adjudicating the appeals. This order would also have no bearing on
the respective contentions of both the parties in pending appeals
or on any other collateral proceedings. We also make it explicitly
clear that the order dated 19.03.2024 to the extent of imposing
additional conditions is hereby recalled, as it is diametrically opposite
to the order dated 17.05.2022 and 21.11.2014. The directions
issued under Orders dated: 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 shall be
complied by the competent authority of BBMP keeping in mind the
observations made hereinabove within six (6) weeks from today
and compliance affidavit shall be filed within the said period failing
which the Commissioner, BBMP and the competent authority for
issuance of TDR shall appear in person before this Court for having
failed to comply with the orders of this Court, to enable this Court
to pass further orders. On account of the faux pas situation that
has been created by the respondent authorities, we direct that
each of the complainants shall be paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each
towards the cost of these proceedings except complainant in C.P.
No. 578 of 2022.
26. In the light of the aforesaid observations contempt petition Nos.688
of 2021, 716 of 2023, 555 of 2024, 556 of 2024 and 585 of 2024
are allowed in above terms, CP No. 578 of 2022 stands disposed
of reserving liberty to the complainants to pursue their grievance
before the competent authority for issuance of TDR on resolution of
the inter se dispute and it is needless to state that successful party
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1319

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.

would be entitled to receive the TDR as ordered by this Court vide
Order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.
27. All pending applications stands consigned to records.
For reporting compliance and/or appearance of the contemnors as
the case may be. List these matters on 22nd January 2025.

Result of the case: Matter listed for reporting compliance.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan