“This acquisition occurred under a 1996 law, and compensation of Rs 11 crore was fixed. The concept of TDR didn’t exist at that time.Section 14B, which permits TDR, was introduced only in 2004, and applies only where landowners voluntarily surrender their land and not where the State acquires it compulsorily,” he said.The dispute dates back to 1997, when the royal family challenged the validity of the 1996 Act before the top court and the plea is still pending.Meanwhile, the state government sought to develop a road on a portion of the palace grounds, which triggered a series of litigations and ultimately led to the contempt petitions.The senior lawyer raised concerns about the contempt judgment, arguing that the bench failed to address his legal objections under Section 14B.”You cannot amend a final judgment or introduce new rights via a contempt proceeding,” he said.The bench questioned whether the current bench could “sit in appeal” over the order passed by a coordinate bench. Sibal clarified that the state government was not seeking to overturn the earlier order, but only to ensure that its legal concerns are properly addressed within the framework of the pending appeal.TDR certificates are a mechanism used in land acquisition to compensate landowners when their property is taken for public projects like road widening or infrastructure development.
Source link
