Dr. L.M. Singhvi, G.L. Sanghi, V.M. Tarkunde, Dalveer Bhandari, Ms. Rachna Joshi, K.N. Toshi, Lekh Rai Mehta, Gopal Singh, Sushil K. Jain and Sudharshan Atreya for the Appellants.
It is thereafter that the State Government in the mat ters decided by Justice M.L. Jain and by Justice Banerjee and the trust, in the case decided by Justice K.D. Sharma went up in appeal under Letters Patent and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench disposed of all these appeals and hence these appeals have companye before us after grant of leave.
Maharaja Hanwant Singh who was the signatory to the Covenant died in 1952 and after his death he was succeeded by his son Shir Gaj Singh who was minor at that time.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA, J. These appeals have companye 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 The State of Rajasthan and Anr.
79 of 1981.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General P.S. Poti, Badridas Sharma, R.C. Maheshwari and Manoj Jain for the Respondents.
v. Prajapati Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1986 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos.
It was alleged that these three parties purchased respective areas of land for price by registered sale deeds two dated 4.11.71 and one dated 5.11.71 from Shri Gaj Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the Jodhpur State.
3 of 1978.
4 of 1978.
Only an attempt was made by Additional Solicitor General who appeared for the State to suggest that the Central Government alone may have the original and therefore wanted this Court to summon the original but learned companynsel had numberexplanation why this companyld number be done in all these years to which he had numberanswer and therefore it is plain that so far as these facts are companycerned the State companyld number number be permitted to raise any objection in respect of the site plan and the boundary in red of Umaid Bhawan Palace.
v. M s. Jai Marwar Company Pvt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The State of Rajasthan Anr.
In the case in hand we are only companycerned with Category C property and in this category Umaid Bhawan Palace alongwith the area as per plan attached including the Chittar Tank and the Bijolai Tank and buildings was included.
The State of Rajasthan and Anr.
State of Rajasthan and another v. Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
42 1 in the revenue records.
1144 48 of 1987.
Article 12 of the said Covenant provided for the private properties of the rulers of the Covenanting States.
Category C companysists of property which is the absolute property of the Maharaja of Jodhpur with full rights of disposal.
These lands form part of Khasra No.
In accordance with the aforesaid clause in the Covenant, a list of private proper ties of the ruler of the former State of Jodhpur was pre pared and.it was approved by the Government of India on 24th March, 1949.
v. Adhunik Grah Nirman Samiti Limited, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
In clause 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.
Ex ruler Jodhpur supplied to the respondents have been got verified from the Chief Engineer P.W.D. B R Rajasthan, Jaipur and the office of the General Administration Department, Rajasthan, Secre tariat, Jaipur.
5 of 1978.
354 of 1984.
There is yet another adjacent land which also was in dispute in other matters than these three which was Khasra No.
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 Private Limited.
Facts which are number in dispute are that after attainment of independence on 15th August, 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.
Category A companysists of properties which were to be regard ed as the family property of the Maharaja of Jodhpur and which will number be transferred.
3, 4, 5 of 1978 and 79 of 198 1 and 354 of 1984.
Ltd., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
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.
Category B companysists 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.
and the same reply filed by the said Additional Collector has been verified on affidavit by the same officer who in his affidavit states That the photostat companyy of the companyvenant as also the true companyy of the plan referred in the Schedule of the inventory of the private properties of Ex ruler.
After the hearing was companycluded an attempt has been made on behalf of the State and certain papers have been filed which pertains to some returns filed in companynection with the assessment in respect of the building Umaid Bhawan Palace which has been described as Hotel Marudhar and on that basis probably a suggestion is made that in this the ex ruler has submitted a plan for assessment of the property tax wherein he has number showed this part of the property which is the subject matter of the dispute.
In Misc.
During the minority of Shri Gaj Singh an administrator was appoint ed for the purpose of administration of the estate of the minor Maharaja.
In the said list of private properties the immovable properties were divided into three categories.
