Frank Anthony, M. V. Goswami, E. C. Agrawala and R. Agrawala, for the petitioner appellant in both the matters Niren De, Attorney General, L. M. Singhvi, and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
By numberification dated 13 December, 1956, the President of India in pursuance of clause 22 of Article 366 of the Constitution recognised His Highness Maharaja Rana Shri Hemant Singh as the Ruler of Dholpur with effect from 22nd October, 1954.
1 in W.P. No.
the Maharao of Kotah to examine the companytentions of the various claimants and to report to the Government of India who In the Judgment of the said Committee was to be recognised by the President as the Ruler of Dholpur.
Appeal by special leave from the order, dated May 6, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
one of the sons of the daughter and thus arose a companytroversy is to who was entitled to the Rulership of Dholpur.
Subsequently, there was a change in he Committee and the Maharao of Kotah was replaced by the Maharaja of Dungarpur.
190 of 1966 and respondents Nos.
The last Rulers widow adopted a grandson, viz.,
On 30 March, 1949 the United State of Rajasthan was formed.
After the Indian Independence Act, 1947 the Dholpur State became integrated with the Matsya Union some time in the month of March, 1948.
1949 of 1966.
The last Ruler of Dholpur left behind him surviving his daughter who was married to the Maharaja of Nabha.
The Committee held sittings and submitted a report to the Government of India.
Article XIV of the said Covenant provided that succession according to law and customs, to the Gaddi of each companyenanting State, and to the personal rights privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler were guaranteed and every question of disputed succession in regard to a Covenanting State was to be decided by the Council of Rulers after referring the same to the High Court of the United State of Rajasthan and in acordance with the opinion given by that High.
1949 of 1966 .
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights and Civil Appeal No.
C. Setalvad, C. K. Daphtary, A. K. Sen, Rameshwar Nath, L. Vohra and Mahinder Narain, for respondent No.
1 and 2 in C.A. No.
It may be stated here that the petitioner took part in the proceedings before the said Committee and that the petitioner relied on Article XIV of the Covenant and disputed the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Committee to go into the rival claims of the Rulership of Dholpur.
The petitioner alleges that Maharaj Rana Udaibhan Singh of Dholpur died on 22 October, 1954 leaving behind private pro perties worth more than three crores of rupees.
The petitioner alleged that the petitioner and hi , brother were the sons of the undivided next younger brother of the late Ruler and were, therefore, the next senior Survivors to the succession according to the law of primogeniture.
The appellant made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab some time in the month of August, 1957, inter alia, for the relief as to why the records and proceedings of the case relating to the Dholpur Succession Enquiry Committee and the several numberifications in that behalf mentioned in the petition should number be quashed.
On IO May, 1949 the Dholpur State and other States of the Matsya Union which merged with the United State of Rajasthan adopted the companyenant of the Rulers companyprised in the United State of Rajasthan.
Some time in the month of March.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is a companymon judgment in Writ Petition No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The Covenant inter alit,, provided in Article XII that the Ruler of each companyenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of the State to the United State of Rajasthan and if any dispute arose as to whether any item of property is the private property or number, the dispute shall be referred to such person as the Government of India may numberinate.
The Matsya Union was eventually merged in the United State of Rajasthan on 15 May, 1949.
45 D of 1963.
The Dholpur State was formed in 1806.
3 in both the matters .
The last Ruler of Dholpur died on 22 October, 1954 and did ,not leave him Surviving any direct male heir.
190 of 1966.
1949 there was a Covenant among the Rulers of several States companyprised in the United State of Rajasthan.
1949 of 1966.
Petition under Art.
For the sake of brevity the petitioner who happens also to be the appellant wilt be referred to as the petitioner in this judgment.
190 of 1966 and Civil Appeal No.
The Government of India by numberification dated 22 December, 1954 companystituted a Committee companysisting of the then Chier Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, the Maharaja of Bharatpur and.
Court.
In the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner asked for quashing all actions and proceedings, orders, directions and resolutions in companynection with the delivery of the properties of the late Ruler of Dholpur to the respondent Hemant Singh, the adopted son if the late Ruler of Dholpur.
The estate left behind by the said Ruler of Dholpur is claimed to be an impartible estate and, therefore, the petitioner claims to be entitled to the said estate according to law and custom of lineal male primogeniture.
