The state government has finally resolved the confusion over the valuation of Bengaluru Palace land required to widen two prominent roads in the city. It has instructed the civic body to follow the special law enacted in 1996 to compensate Mysuru’s erstwhile royal family for utilising over 15 acres of litigated prime land.
Based on the present guidance value, the government would have had to pay Rs 1,400 crore in transferable development rights (TDR), putting the Siddaramaiah-led government in a spot. This was because, when the government issued an order on March 14 stipulating that the erstwhile royals would be given TDR, it did not address the question of valuing the palace land.
The ambiguity put the BBMP in a difficult position. DH had reported the development on May 12, 2024.
However, a new order issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) on May 24 could help the government ward off allegations of extending undue favours to the erstwhile royals.
The Government Order (GO) states that the BBMP must go by the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, to determine the base value of the 472-acre palace land. And the compensation for the 15 acres and 17.5 guntas required for road-widening must be proportionate. Going by this valuation, the entire palace land is worth Rs 11 crore and the TDR compensation for nearly 16 acres that the BBMP needs to acquire would work out to a little over Rs 1 crore, compared to Rs 1,400 crore.
The GO also laid down other conditions for the BBMP to use the palace land to widen Ballari and Jayamahal roads. It said there must be no overlap in the calculation of new palace land needed for road-widening, considering that the BBMP already used about 13,000 square metres of land to form Palace Cross Road in 1999 and 8,510 acres to build an approach road to the Mehkri Circle underpass in 2000.
While the DPAR order cited Supreme Court orders issued in response to interlocutory applications (IAs) numbered 2 and 11, it is subject to the final orders of the apex court in the civil appeal filed by the legal heirs of the erstwhile royals, who challenged the 1996 act.
Earlier, the Karnataka Rashtra Samithi opposed using the current guidance value, citing two instances where strips of Palace Ground were utilised in the past with compensation based on the 1996 Act. The party also alleged that the government was withholding certain facts from the Supreme Court.