Shifting Is Settled, Only the Exit Terms
Remain
By Sharan Kumar
The proceedings before the Supreme Court on Wednesday have
effectively let the cat out of the bag. Read plainly, the court record stands
in sharp contrast to the impression sought to be created by the Bangalore Turf
Club that the apex court is taking a favourable view of its case. On the
contrary, the trajectory of the litigation suggests that the Club is not
negotiating from a position of strength, and the endgame is already
visible.
The foundational facts are no longer in dispute. The
Club’s lease expired long ago. Its claim to the land was decisively rejected by
the High Court, which ordered the Club to vacate the premises within six
months. The Club continues to function only because the Supreme Court admitted
its Special Leave Petition and ordered status quo pending final adjudication.
That status quo, however, is merely a temporary procedural shield; it does not
resurrect extinguished leasehold rights.
Against this backdrop, the Club has informed the
Karnataka Government that it is willing to shift the race course. This
communication is critical. It marks a clear departure from resistance to
acceptance and implicitly acknowledges the fragility of the Club’s legal
position. The Supreme Court’s recent order simply records that the Club’s
proposal to vacate and hand over the premises is pending consideration with the
State Government and adjourns the matter. Significantly, the Court does not
endorse the proposal, approve its conditions, or issue any protective
directions. The order is neutral in tone but unmistakable in effect.
The proposal itself is heavily conditional. The Club
seeks a three-year relocation period commencing only after clear title is
conveyed by the Government; retention of five acres at the present site to
build a clubhouse and continue inter-venue and betting operations; a 30-year
lease extendable by another 30 years; and tax concessions. These demands amount
to an attempt to convert an inevitable exit into a negotiated settlement
preserving substantial privileges.
However, Supreme Court precedent severely limits the
Club’s leverage. In the Madras Race Club case, the apex court declined to
interfere with the State’s takeover of the Ooty Race Course once the lease had
lapsed in 1985. Crucially, it did not direct the State to provide alternate
land or compensation of any kind. The principle was clear and uncompromising:
once a lease expires, continuation is not a right but a matter of State
discretion.
Viewed against binding precedent, the offer of
alternate land at Kunigal is an act of governmental discretion, not a legal
necessity. The State is free to determine the manner and terms of relocation
and is not bound to accept any of the Club’s conditions on time, tenure, land
retention, or fiscal concessions.
This is where the Club’s predicament becomes apparent.
By placing its willingness to vacate on record, it has effectively conceded the
central issue. There is no going back on that commitment. Any attempt to
project the Supreme Court proceedings as indicative of judicial sympathy is
belied by the record itself. The Court has not stayed eviction indefinitely,
has not questioned the State’s ownership, and has not hinted at a right to
compensation. It is simply awaiting the State’s decision.
The writing, therefore, is unmistakably on the wall.
The Bangalore Turf Club has agreed to vacate the premises because, in law, it
stands on no firm ground to insist otherwise. What remains open is not the
question of shifting, which has attained finality in principle, but the extent
to which the State chooses to accommodate the Club’s demands. The Supreme Court
record makes one thing clear: the balance of power lies with the Government,
not the Club.
Comments
Post a Comment