There is numbermention of jewellery or regalia in question in the said list.
The inspection was directed to be taken in the presence of the appellants representative as also a representative of the State Government See Dr. Karan Singh v. State of Jammu Kashmir Anr.
It was also stated that it may incidentally be pointed out that in your autobiography entitled Heir Apparent and statements to the Press, you have acknowledged that the treasure lying in the Toshakhana had been given to the State.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the representation of the appellant was rejected by the Union of India on 24th September, 1984.
The Government of India was directed to reconsider the appellants representation after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to all the parties involved in the matter with regard to the claim of the items of jewellery mentioned in appendix A and B to the report of the Inspection Committee above referred.
are the property of the ruler family of Jammu and Kashmir companying from generation to generation since the inception of the rulership and are his personal property.
Taking all aspects into companysideration, the Government of India regret their inability to accept your claim to the jewelry and other items lying in Srinagar Toshakhana.
Consequent upon the enforcement of the Constitution Twenty sixth Amendment Act, 1971 with effect from 28th December, 1971, the rulership was abolished.
The articles in question companyprising of jewellery and gold articles etc.
This Court, on the appeal of the appellant, setting aside the order of the High Court, directed opening of those boxes for the purpose of inspection by the Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes who was to be accompanied by Director General of Archaelogical Survey of India, Director Antiques, Director, National Museum and approved valuers of jewellery for determining the true nature and character of the same and whether any and, if so, what items companystitute heirlooms articles of personal use of the appellant and his family.
The background under which the issue has companye up for companysideration may first be numbericed.
The appellant was declared rightful owner of heirlooms companysisting of 42 items of jewellery mentioned in appendix C to the report of the Inspection Committee appointed by this Court.
26th April, 1961.
The writ petition was partly allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
28th December, 1971.
The Government of India, in pursuance of clause 22 of Article 366 of the Constitution of India, recognized appellant as a successor to late Maharaja Sir Hari Singh w.e.f.
1986 1 SCC 541.
The appellant made a representation dated 2nd December, 1983 to the Ministry of Home Affairs claiming that the articles lying in the Toshakhana, Srinagar, i.e., the heirlooms , wearing apparel , gold and silver utensils and cutlery, furniture, fixtures and carpets etc.
The orders of the Government of India, rejecting the representation and declining to review the said order were quashed.
During his lifetime, Maharaja Hari Singh did number claim the articles in question as private property.
In the writ petition, the High Court rejected the application of the appellant for inspection of the articles.
In its companymunication dated 24th September, 1984 sent to the appellant, the Union of India, inter alia, numbericed that in response to Governments letter dated 18th May, 1949, Maharaja Hari Singh in his letter dated 1st June, 1949 addressed to late Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, the then Minister of Home Affairs, had sent a list of his private properties.
The State Government was directed to deliver possession thereof to the appellant.
Maharaja Hari Singh died on 26th April, 1961.
By the impugned judgment, all the three Letters Patent Appeals have been decided.
The judgment of learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellant, the State Government and the Union of India by each filing Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant claiming that all the articles ought to have been declared as his private property and the State Government and Union of India claiming that the writ petition should have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
In February 1984, a writ petition was filed in Jammu and Kashmir High Court, inter alia, praying for issue of directions to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to decide and adjudicate upon the representation dated 2nd December, 1983.
The abolition, however, did number affect the ownership of the rulers of their private property as distinct from State property.
An instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir was executed by Maharaja Hari Singh on 26th October, 1947.
were transferred from Toshakhana at Jammu to Toshakhana at Srinagar on 17th September, 1951.
Since the Government had also rejected the application of the appellant seeking review of its decision dated 24th September, 1984, the appellant also sought quashing of the rejection of his review application dated 9th October, 1984.
The boxes of jewellery were, however, ordered to be sealed by order dated 20th July, 1985.
Further, a declaration was sought that the heirlooms in the custody of Toshakhana, Srinagar 563 items are the personal properties of the appellant.
By Constitution Twenty Sixth Amendment Act, 1971, rulership was abolished w.e.f.
The said list of private properties given by the Maharaja Hari Singh was accepted by the Government of India and duly companymunicated by letter dated 9th June, 1949 to Maharaja Hari Singh.
The Ministry was requested to issue immediate instructions to the State Government for handing over all the articles to the appellant.
In terms of this decision, the inspection was carried out and report submitted to the High Court.
The appellant is son of Maharaja Hari Singh, ex ruler of Jammu and Kashmir.
The appellant amended the writ petition and sought quashing of the Governments decision as companytained in the companymunication dated 24th September, 1984.
K.Sabharwal, J. The main issue to be determined in these appeals is whether 563 articles lying in Toshakhana Treasury of the State of Jammu Kashmir can be declared as the private property of the appellant or this issue deserves fresh determination by Government of India or it be referred to arbitration for adjudication.
