How The Siddaramaiah Government Attempted To Shortchange The Mysuru Royals

After a protracted 14-year legal battle, the Supreme Court recently delivered a scathing rebuke to the Siddaramaiah-led Karnataka government for its persistent delays and repeated attempts to avoid following court orders regarding the issuance of transferable development rights (TDR) to the erstwhile Mysuru royal family.

The case, rooted in 2010, revolves around the acquisition of 15.39 acres of land from the Bengaluru Palace grounds for road widening, as part of an effort to ease traffic congestion in Bengaluru after the opening of the new airport in 2008.

In return for this land, the royal family was promised TDRs.

Despite constructing a new boundary wall, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) reneged on this commitment, forcing the royal family into a long legal battle.

TDR is a mechanism used to compensate landowners when their property is acquired for public projects like road expansion and infrastructure development. These rights allow the owner to sell the development potential of their land to builders seeking to increase the density of construction on other properties.

The state had pleaded that if the TDR certificate is to be issued as per TDR rules for the said extent of 15.39 acres of land, it would result in 1,391,742 square feet of additional built-up area constructible in the city of Bengaluru. That would approximately be equivalent to the notional value of Rs 1,396 crore after deducting 60 per cent of the guidance value (the minimum price at which a property can be registered with the government; also referred to as stamp duty value).

The court bench pointed out that the state government itself has considered the market value as per the guidance value at Rs 270,000 per square metre, fixed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, but has adopted 0.4 times the said value to calculate the TDR for the reason that the Bengaluru 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 the agricultural zone. The subject property was utilised as a private residence of the then Maharaja of Mysuru for a long number of years and it is situated in the heart of the city of Bengaluru. There cannot be any cavil to the fact that TDR is required to be issued as per TDR Rules,” the bench said.

It is to be noted that the Karnataka government in August this year both raised and revised the guidelines for evaluating compensation under the TDR scheme, entrusting the BBMP with the authority to grant TDR compensation to agricultural land equivalent to that of residential property.

In April this year, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) directed the Urban Development Department (UDD) to follow the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, to end the confusion over compensating the utilisation of Bengaluru Palace land. 

The communication from DPAR is important because it is the custodian of the palace land and helps the BBMP determine the total compensation to be issued to the former royal family of Mysuru.

Notably, as per the 1996 Act, which received presidential assent, the compensation for the entire 472-acre palace land was fixed at a paltry sum of Rs 11 crore.

Palace Woes

The palaces of the Mysuru royals have been embroiled in legal controversy since 1966. After India’s independence, Jayachamraja Wadiyar, the last Maharaja of Mysuru, agreed to join the Union of India and relinquish his political powers in exchange for retaining certain properties as private holdings. Among these were the Mysuru and Bengaluru palaces.

However, post-1976, following the enactment of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the government took control of a part of the Mysuru palace for maintenance. However, in 1997, after the Karnataka High Court compelled the state to return management of the Mysuru palace to the royal family, the Janata Dal (Secular) government passed two laws — the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998, and the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 — which sought to address the acquisition of royal properties.

Both acts received presidential assent during the tenure of H D Deve Gowda, who was prime minister for a brief period between 1996 and 1997.

The former scion of Mysuru, late Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, shared the property with his five sisters, namely Gayatri Devi, Meenakshi Devi, Kamakshi Devi, Indrakshi Devi, and Vishalakshi Devi.

After a challenge by the Wadiyar family on the validity of the 1996 Act, the Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of the state. Consequently, the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court deferred hearing till a nine-judge bench of the apex court ruled upon the nature of private property in the country and whether it can be considered a ‘material resource of the community’ under Article 39(b).

Article 39(b), a socialist DPSP (Directive Principle of State Policy), essentially states that the government should distribute the ownership and control of the community's material resources to best serve the common good and, thereby, the government can claim certain private properties in specific cases if they align with this goal.

Former chief justice D Y Chandrachud constituted the said nine-judge bench in November this year and, in the Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., held that not all privately owned property can be considered a "material resource of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

The court's decision clarified that the government cannot simply take over all private properties by calling them "community resources." The court also held that determining whether a resource falls within the scope of Article 39(b) requires taking into account several factors, including the resource's nature, significance, and scarcity.

This verdict is likely to give impetus to the proceedings of the main Bengaluru Palace acquisition case.

*

Swarajya spoke to R Raja Chandra Urs, the husband of Maharajkumari Indrakshi Devi (daughter of the late Jayachamraja Wadiyar, Maharaja of Mysuru), seeking his thoughts on the recent Supreme Court direction to the state government on the grant of TDR rights to the family.

What is the status of the main case with regards to the acquisition of the Bengaluru Palace?

Even today, this case is pending in the Supreme Court. This is because an issue relating to the interpretation of the Constitution was pending before a nine-judge bench. This was resolved by Justice Chandrachud in November. Now our main case will have to be listed in due course. It will have be heard and decided.

There are reports that the TDR rights that are granted are conditional to the outcome of the main case. What are the conditions, if any?

There are no conditions as such, except that it should be given to the royal family within six weeks since the issue of the order. In a legal system, anybody can raise any question in the future. But this decision is independent. Somebody has to overrule this decision. It has to then go to a larger bench. Such things do not normally occur. What it essentially means is, 15.39 acres of land has gone out of the entire original land that was to be taken over, and the status of the same has been decided through this order.

Would you like to comment on the bureaucratic inertia and political apathy faced by the royal family in relation to this case?

The Mysuru Maharajas are one of the most benevolent Maharajas the country has ever seen. Mahatma Gandhi called Mysuru as Ram Rajya. Even Lord John Sankey in 1930 at the first roundtable conference in London acknowledged that "Mysore is the best administered state in the world."

Today, the common man himself will attest that the state is certainly not a well-administered state, nor is it Ram Rajya. 

Such people are mistreating the royal family. We are ill-treated at every step. See, it may be a palace, but it is also my house. Nobody can simply declare that my house belongs to the state, unless there is perhaps a reason for a larger public purpose, such as roads and airports or there  exists material resources such as gold.

Even if such is the case, the state cannot simply rob me by saying it shall only pay (Rs) 11 crores. There has to be some rationale. If I have to part with my property and the state wants to take it, then it has to only be by negotiation. The state can’t simply declare that since it has now become the government, it may do anything it pleases. 

The might of the state was exercised in 1996. Twenty-eight years are over. The best part of my adult life is gone. I have wasted my time and money merely trying to say this is my ancestral house, don't take it away from me, and yet the issue still remains undecided. Every citizen should ask if their house is taken over in a similar manner, what would they do? Would they agree that such a Constitution is right? Is this what democracy is about?

All citizens have to be treated equally. I accepted the citizenship of this country. I surrendered my sovereignty and handed over the kingdom. My ancestors have ruled for so many years. We have done a good job. Now you wish to govern; then please do so. However, instead of giving governance, I am now being attacked.

At every step, we are told the government will take the Mysuru palace or Bengaluru palace. We have a right to live as well.

What do you think is the motivation behind such treatment?

That, you have to ask them (laughs). See, certainly one thing must be understood. If I were a member of the Gowda, Lingayat, Muslim, or Kuruba community, there would have been a hell of a lot of galata (commotion). Whereas I am from a community known as the Arasus or the Wadiyars, whose entire strength may not be 25,000 within the state. We are a microscopic minority. Our total strength is negligible. There are probably more Parsis than Arasus.

Yet, since we don't have any minority status, we don't have any protection. We are not a vote bank, so even if anything is done, there is nobody to retaliate. Even if one merely criticises Tipu Sultan, there would be public agitations. But in our case, nobody bothers. One needs numerical strength. We don't have that.

Is that why there is perhaps a differential treatment to the Mysuru royal family in comparison to the other royals?

Take the case of the Nizam of Hyderbad. He did not want to become a part of India. The Indian state had to send an army to make him surrender. But still he was given everything. Even today, the family owns the Falaknuma palace. It is one of the finest hotels in the world and is managed by the family itself.

Take the Baroda family. The Baroda palace is more than 700 acres. Prime Minister Modi goes there to conduct international meets. He is not threatening to take it away from them.

The unfortunate problem in our case is that even the media has never questioned the politicians as to why they are doing this. There is no debate over whether such actions are right or wrong. Therefore, we have to defend ourselves in court, which we have been doing but god knows how many more years it shall take.

If a king goes before a judge who has a socialist orientation, one never knows... sometimes, it is a question of luck. This TDR issue itself dragged on for 14 years, and luckily this judge has given a scathing report against the government, but one can’t say one will be lucky all the time. 

There are different numbers floating around with regards to the worth of the TDRs, between Rs 1,400 crore to Rs 3,000 crore. What is the actual value?

One must understand that nobody is giving cash here. It is a piece of paper, by which what is normally illegal becomes legal. As the government is short on cash and is not capable of paying, they are devising ways and means to regularise something illegal, which by itself is ethically wrong. It means the law is applied differently when the state seeks to save money.

The buyer who is buying the TDR from me has to offer a price, and that depends on the market conditions. If there is more demand, the price will go up. If at one go 15 acres of TDR comes to the market, it may be said that many buildings or builders are not there, and then the demand gets diluted. It is not under my control. Only when I have the paper in hand and go to sell the TDRs will I know. Right now, it is speculative.

*

In an open letter published in the Star of Mysore, Raja Chandra Urs has also pointed out that while the government dragged its feet on a simple promise to the royals, CM Siddaramaiah reportedly sought Rs 62 crore in compensation for just 3.16 acres of land in Kesare village, justifying it by saying, “Should we let go of our land just because I am the CM?”

Key members of the royal family, Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar and his sisters Meenakshi Devi and Vishalakshi Devi, who filed these petitions, are no longer alive. One can only hope that the saga ends soon and estwhile royals are given their due justice.