R. P. Sethi, C. J.

( 1 ) DESPITE half a century of independence, overthrow of the foreign rule, abolition of monarchial system of Governments and the sea changes brought about in the socio-economic-political system in the Democratic Republic of India, the successors-in-interest of the former ruler of mysore State have challenged the jurisdiction of the Legislature in enacting laws with the purpose of depriving them of the privileges allegedly conferred upon the ruler in lieu of the surrender of sovereignty in favour of the Dominion of India. Claim to the properties has been sought to be protected under the umbrella stated to have been provided by the Instrument of accession and Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State legislature in enacting the laws with respect to the properties of the former ruler of Mysore has also been challenged on the grounds of inherent lack of jurisdiction under Part XI read with schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. In order to hold that the action of the State Legislature was unconstitutional, reliance is placed upon various provisions of Part III and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. All these pleas and the contention raised are with respect to the dispute raised regarding the acquisition by legislative action of the Bangalore Palace (hereinafter called 'the Palace'), admittedly the acknowledged private property of the former ruler of Mysore. Controversy raised is with respect to the enactment of The Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and transfer) Act, 1996 (Karnataka Act No. 18/1996) (hereinafter called 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE petitioners have stated that the value of the Palace and the adjoining lands is Rs. 3,000 crores, approximately. It is submitted that the Palace was built in 1915 on the designs of Windsor palace of England and comparises of 477 acres of land and other buildings meant for the use of the staff and ancillary purposes. FACTUAL BACK GROUND:

( 3 ) IN order to set the controversy at rest, it is necessary to take note of some of the facts as incorporated in WP No. 32175/1996. The facts in other Writ Petitions are admitted to be identical.

( 4 ) THE petitioners claim to be the successors-in-interest of the former rule of the then State of mysore, or claiming through the legal heirs of the said ruler. Late Sri Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV, the former ruler of Mysore is stated to be owning various properties, induding the palaces at mysore and Bangalore. After his demise, Sri Jayachamaraja Wodeyar ascended the throne and inherited the properties. It is contended that on account of the Independence Movement in the country and other historical factors, the British Government decided to transfer power to the people of India by June, 1948. Option was given to the Maharajas of various States to relinquish their powers in favour of the Government of India or the newly created State of Pakistan. The indian Independence Act received the Royal assent on 18. 7. 1947 provided for two independent dominions of India and Pakistan, with effect from 14. 8. 1947. It is submited that even before the passing of the Indian Independence Act, Lord Mount Batten, the then Viceroy of India, had suggested a peaceful settlement regarding the Indian rulers, viz. , to allow the rulers to retain their titles, extra territorial rights and personal properties, in return for which they were to join any of the dominions with respect to only three subjects, viz. , Defence, External Affairs and communications. In pursuance of the efforts made by the then Viceroy, an Instrument of accession of the States was prepared, providing for the integration of the States and for transfer of power from the rulers. The rulers are stated to have been guaranteed the privy purses, succession to Gaddi, rights and privileges and full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to them, as distinct from State properties. The Maharaja of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mah

Click Here to Read the rest of this document