The Bangalore Palace Grounds, a sprawling 472-acre estate in the heart of Bengaluru, has been at the center of a prolonged legal dispute between the Karnataka government and the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysore royal family, led by the late Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar. On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling, directing the Karnataka government to release Transferable Development Rights (TDR) worth approximately ₹3,400 crore to the Wadiyar heirs and other claimants for the acquisition of over 15 acres of palace land intended for road widening projects. This decision marks a critical chapter in a decades-long saga that intertwines history, heritage, and modern urban development, highlighting the complexities of property rights and governmental authority in one of India’s most rapidly growing cities.
Historical Context of the Bangalore Palace Grounds
The Bangalore Palace, inspired by England’s Windsor Castle, was commissioned in the late 19th century by Maharaja Chamaraja Wadiyar and completed in 1878. With its Tudor and Gothic architectural elements, the palace and its expansive grounds have served as a royal residence, a venue for ceremonial functions, and, in recent decades, a cultural hub hosting high-profile events, including concerts by global icons like Metallica, The Rolling Stones, and Elton John, as well as weddings and exhibitions. The 472-acre estate, once spread over 6,000 acres in the 1950s, remains a symbol of Bengaluru’s royal heritage, even as urbanization has encroached upon its boundaries.
The dispute over the palace grounds traces its roots to the 1950 agreement between Jayachamaraja Wadiyar, the last Maharaja of Mysore, and the Government of India. This agreement recognized the palaces, including Bangalore Palace, as private properties of the royal family in exchange for the surrender of sovereign powers. Despite the 1971 abolition of princely privileges through the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the government clarified in 1972 that private property rights would remain unaffected. However, tensions arose in the 1970s when Jayachamaraja Wadiyar transferred portions of the palace grounds to two private companies, sparking legal challenges that set the stage for future conflicts.
The Legal Battle Begins: The 1996 Acquisition Act
The core of the current dispute lies in the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act of 1996, enacted by the Karnataka government under the Janata Dal administration, with H.D. Deve Gowda as Chief Minister and Siddaramaiah as a key minister. The Act aimed to acquire the 472-acre palace grounds for public purposes, such as creating a botanical garden, horticultural garden, and tree park to address Bengaluru’s ecological needs amid rapid urbanization. The government offered ₹11 crore as compensation, a figure the Wadiyar family, led by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, deemed grossly inadequate, given the land’s estimated market value of ₹40,000 crore in 2013.
Srikantadatta, who passed away in 2013, challenged the Act’s constitutional validity, arguing that it violated the royal family’s property rights. The Karnataka High Court upheld the Act, but the Wadiyars escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, where it has remained pending before a constitutional bench. In the interim, the palace grounds became a battleground for smaller disputes, particularly over land acquisitions for infrastructure projects like road widening.
The Road Widening Controversy and TDR Dispute
The immediate issue in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling pertains to the acquisition of approximately 15 acres and 39 guntas of palace land for widening Ballari and Jayamahal Roads, critical arteries connecting to Bengaluru’s Kempegowda International Airport. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) initiated this process in 2009, following increased traffic demands after the airport’s opening in 2008. The royal family cooperated, handing over the land with the understanding that they would receive TDR as compensation, a mechanism allowing landowners to receive development rights equivalent to 1.5 times the market value of the acquired land, which can be sold to developers for additional construction rights.
In 2014, the Supreme Court ordered the Karnataka government to issue TDR for the road widening, a directive reaffirmed by the Karnataka High Court in 2016. However, the state repeatedly delayed compliance, citing financial constraints. Initially, the BBMP offered a nominal ₹1 crore based on 1996 land valuations (₹120.68 per square meter), a figure the Wadiyars rejected as inadequate. The Supreme Court, in its December 10, 2024, ruling, clarified that TDR must be issued based on current market values under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, fixing rates at ₹2,83,500 per square meter for Ballari Road and ₹2,04,000 per square meter for Jayamahal Road, totaling ₹3,011.66 crore for the 15 acres.
Karnataka’s Resistance and the 2025 Ordinance
Faced with the prospect of issuing TDR worth over ₹3,000 crore, the Karnataka government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, introduced the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Ordinance on January 29, 2025, approved by Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot. This ordinance sought to bypass the Supreme Court’s TDR directive by reserving the state’s right to either acquire or not acquire the palace land, effectively halting the road-widening project to avoid the financial burden. The ordinance also limited compensation to ₹2.3 lakh per acre, a fraction of the court-mandated TDR value of nearly ₹200 crore per acre.
The state argued that issuing TDR at current market rates would set a precedent, potentially escalating the cost of acquiring the entire 462-acre palace grounds to over ₹1 lakh crore. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Karnataka, emphasized that the 1994 acquisition was being valued at 2024 rates, creating an unsustainable financial strain. Additionally, the government accused the Wadiyar heirs of violating a 2001 Supreme Court status quo order by constructing unauthorized structures, such as marriage halls, a pub, and academies, on the palace grounds. On January 9, 2025, the state issued notices to demolish these structures within 15 days and planned to file a contempt petition against the royal family.
The Supreme Court’s Stern Directive
The Supreme Court, in its May 22, 2025, ruling, took a firm stance against Karnataka’s attempts to circumvent its earlier orders. Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, hearing contempt petitions filed by Pramoda Devi Wadiyar (Srikantadatta’s widow) and other heirs, expressed frustration with the state’s inconsistent positions. The bench declared the December 2024 TDR order “non-negotiable” and directed the government to deposit the ₹3,400 crore TDR certificates with the Court Registrar within one week. The court also summoned top bureaucrats, including the Chief Secretary, BBMP Commissioner, and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Commissioner, to ensure compliance, warning of consequences for further delays.
The court rejected Karnataka’s claim that the palace land fell within an agricultural zone, which would justify lower TDR valuations. It noted that the property, located in Bengaluru’s urban core and historically used as a royal residence, could not be classified as agricultural. The bench emphasized that TDR issuance is a cost-neutral administrative task, as it does not involve direct financial payouts but grants development rights that the Wadiyars could monetize.
The Royal Family’s Perspective
Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, the legal heir and custodian of the Wadiyar legacy, has been vocal in her criticism of the Karnataka government’s tactics. In January 2025, she slammed the ordinance as an unjust attempt to deny the royal family their rightful compensation, pointing out the inconsistency in the state’s willingness to pay 150% of market value for Bengaluru Metro land acquisitions while resisting TDR for palace land. “We cooperated with the government’s road-widening needs, but they have reneged on their promise,” she stated, vowing to continue the legal fight. Pramoda Devi clarified that TDR is not traditional compensation but a certificate governed by the state’s own rules, which may or may not yield immediate monetary value depending on market conditions.
Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar, Srikantadatta’s adopted son and the current BJP MP from Mysore-Kodagu, echoed this sentiment, arguing that the government’s actions reflect a broader pattern of disregarding the royal family’s rights. He highlighted the historical significance of the palace grounds and accused successive governments of attempting to erase the Wadiyar legacy, citing similar disputes over the Mysore Palace and Chamundeshwari Temple.
Political and Public Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for Karnataka’s political landscape. The Congress-led government, under Siddaramaiah, faces criticism for its handling of the case, with opponents alleging that the ordinance was a politically motivated move to avoid compliance with judicial orders. The passage of the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill on March 6, 2025, which replaced the ordinance, further entrenched the state’s authority to control the palace grounds and limit compensation, raising questions about the balance between public interest and private property rights.
The BJP, leveraging Yaduveer’s position as a party MP, has framed the dispute as an attack on Karnataka’s royal heritage. Meanwhile, public sentiment, as reflected in social media posts, is mixed. Some view the Wadiyars’ claim as a fight for justice against bureaucratic overreach, while others argue that the palace grounds, as a public asset, should prioritize urban development over royal privileges.
The Bigger Picture: Heritage vs. Development
The Bangalore Palace Grounds dispute encapsulates a broader tension between preserving historical heritage and meeting the demands of modern urban planning. The palace, a cultural landmark, has hosted events that define Bengaluru’s identity as a global city. However, its prime location makes it a target for infrastructure projects, as Bengaluru grapples with traffic congestion and rapid growth. The state’s push to acquire portions of the grounds for public purposes, such as road widening, clashes with the Wadiyar family’s claim to their ancestral property, rooted in agreements predating India’s independence.
The Supreme Court’s insistence on TDR reflects a judicial effort to balance these interests, ensuring that landowners are fairly compensated without derailing public projects. However, the Karnataka government’s resistance, culminating in the 2025 ordinance and bill, underscores the financial and political complexities of such disputes. The case also raises questions about the treatment of India’s erstwhile royal families, whose properties, once protected by agreements with the Indian government, have faced repeated challenges in the post-independence era.
Sponsored
FACTS Transcripts
Apply for a University document anywhere
https://www.factstranscript.com
Quick Transcripts for popular Universities, check your University name now and get started. We help you to get your transcript application online which is accepted for use of IRCC.
No DD, NO Paperwork. 100% Authentic, Reliable.
FACTS Transcripts Charges · Reviews · Assam Universities · Home · Know your University
