Back
1989 Supreme(SC) 127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.
Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1144-48 of 1947 (with CMP. Nos.556-58 and SLP (C) No.16037 of 1988)
Decided on 28-2-1989.
Badri Das Sharma, DALVIR BHANDARI, G.L.SANGHI, G.RAMASVAMY, Gopal Singh, K.N.Joshi, L.M.SINGHVI, LEKH RAJ MEHTA, MANOJ JAIN, P.S.POTI, R.K.MAHESHWARI, Rachana Joshi Issar, SUDHANSHU ATREYA, SUSHIL JAIN, V.M.TARKUNDE
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 12 – Amendment Act, 1975 – Section 2 – Rajasthan Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Act, 1973 – Section 3 – Rajasthan Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Repeal Act, 1978 – Section 3 – Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Rules, 1964 – Rule 8 – Rajasthan Urban Property Ceiling Act, 1972 – Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners Estate Act, 1963 – Solicitor – Affidavits – Commencement- Writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Rajasthan Company was alleged that these three parties purchased respective areas of land for price by registered sale deeds erstwhile ruler of Jodhpur lands form part of Khasra revenue records yet another adjacent land which also was in dispute in other matters axe not in dispute are that after attainment of independence rulers of the erstwhile princely Mewar, Partabgarh Shahpura and Tonk entered into a Covenant with Government of India integrating these States into one Covenant provided for private properties of rulers of Covenanting States article it was prescribed that ruler of each of Covenanting State shall be entitled to full ownership use and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to him of his making over Administration of State – Held, Whether this land is agricultural or not it will be relevant to note – Learned counsel for the State has relied on some described as Padat and it is contended that this land will be agricultural land as it also includes waste land – Even on record on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the State that no land revenue is assessed on this land contrary counsel for appellant referred to a notification published in Jodhpur Government Gazette and this notification states that Development Department shall have control over disposal of land for building sites and building regulation shall operate over area within a radius of three miles from Sojati Gate and it is not disputed that these lands fell within three miles radius from Sojati Gate learned counsel respondent that this land is an agricultural land also cannot be accepted and in view of our conclusions reached above it is clear that taken by learned could be taken – Consequently the appeals filed by appellants including judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan in appeals is set aside and it is held that no action could be taken against appellants – Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
OZA, J. :— These appeals have come to this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 29-9-86* wherein the learned Judges disposed of the following appeals by the impugned judgment and against this after grant of leave these appeals are before us :
* Reported in 1987 WLM (UC) 103.
(1) The State of Rajasthan and another v. Prajapati Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 3 of 1978).
(2) The State of Rajasthan and another v. Adhunik Grah Nirman Samiti Limited (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 4 of 1978).
(3) The State of Rajasthan and another v M/s. Jai Marwar Company Pvt. Ltd., (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 5 of 1978).
(4) Trustees of Major Maharaja Hari Singh Benefit of Defence Service Personnel Charitable Trust v. The State of Rajasthan and others (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 79 of 1981).
(5) State of Rajasthan and another v. Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 354 of 1984).
2. Initially the three writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Rajasthan by (i)Prajapati Grah Nirman Samiti Limited, (ii) Adhunik Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd., and (iii) M/s. Jai Marwar Company Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that these three parties purchased respective areas of land for price by registered sale deeds two dated 4-11-1971 and one dated 5-11-1971 from Shri Gaj Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the Jodhpur State. These lands form part of Khasra No. 421 in the revenue records. There is yet another adjacent. land which also was in dispute in other matters than these three which was Khasra No. 426.
3. Facts which axe not in dispute are that after attainment of independence on 15th Aug. 1947 the rulers of the erstwhile princely States of Banswara, Bikaner, Bundi. Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, Jodhpur, Kishangarh, Kota, Mewar, Partabgarh, Shahpura and Tonk entered into a Covenant with the Government of India integrating these States into one. Article 12 of the said Covenant provided for the private properties of the rulers of the Covenanting States. In Cl. (1) of this article it was prescribed that the ruler of each of the Covenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership; use and enjoyment of all private properties. (as distinct from State properties), belonging to him on the date of his making over the Administration of the State. In accordance with the aforesaid clause in the Covenant, a list of private properties of the ruler of the former State of Jodhpur was prepared and it was approved by the Government of India on 24th March, 1949. In the said list of private properties the immovable properties were divided into three categories. Category A consist of properties which were to be regarded as the family property of the Maharaja of Jodhpur and which will not be transferred. Category B consists of properties which were to be regarded as family properties of Maharaja of Jodhpur but which will be disposable by him if he and his heir agree to do so. Category C consists of property which is the absolute property of the Maharaja of Jodhpur with full rights of disposal. In the case in hand we are only concerned with Category C property and in this category Umaid Bhawan Palace along with the area as per plan attached including the Chittar Tank and the Bijolai Tank and buildings was included.
4. Maharaja Hanwant Singh who was the signatory to the Covenant died in 1952 and after his death he was succeeded by his son Shri Gaj Singh who was minor at that time. During the minority of Shri Gaj Singh an administrator was appointed for the purpose of administration of the estate of the minor Maharaja.
5. In 1964 the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly enacted the Act which received the assent of the President of India on 6-4-1964 and was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 13-4-1964. The Act was enacted to provide for the acquisition of the estates of landowners. Under Section 7 of the Act a provision was made for issuing a notification by the State Government appo
