New Delhi, May 26 (Reporter) The Karnataka government on Monday moved the Supreme Court challenging its direction to award ₹3,011 crore worth of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to the heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family, contending that the legal provision enabling such compensation did not exist at the time of land acquisition in 1996. In a significant legal development, the state submitted that the court’s direction, passed last week in contempt proceedings, granted retrospective effect to Section 14B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, which came into force only in 2004. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Karnataka, argued that such retrospective application of law was impermissible and could not be introduced through contempt proceedings while an appeal in the matter remains pending since 1997. "You can’t amend the judgment of a court through a contempt petition. TDR came into effect in 2004. How can it apply to an acquisition that took place in 1996?" Sibal argued before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during a mention for urgent listing. CJI Gavai agreed to list the state’s application but questioned whether a bench could sit in appeal over the order passed by another bench. In response, Sibal clarified that the state was not seeking an appeal but merely pointing out that critical legal arguments, particularly the non-applicability of Section 14B, were overlooked in the earlier order. The controversy stems from the acquisition of 472 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996. While the High Court upheld the Act, the royal heirs challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court in 1997. The issue of compensation for 15 acres used in a road-widening project led to contempt petitions, in which the apex court ordered issuance of TDRs last week. Sibal noted that original compensation for the entire property was fixed at ₹11 crore. "Now TDRs worth ₹3,011 crore are being handed over for just 15 acres, and the state’s core argument whether the law applies at all has not been addressed," he told the court. A lawyer representing the royal family claimed that the TDRs were already issued last Friday, making the matter infructuous. However, the CJI said this issue would be considered during Tuesday’s hearing. The case now poses a larger constitutional question about the limits of judicial authority in contempt proceedings and the retrospective application of legislative provisions...////...