New Delhi: Do the Indian courts completely stop listening to disputes between the government and the former-home families, especially signed between two institutions on assets mentioned in the pre-constitution era?
A legal debate has arisen before the Supreme Court, where four members of the Jaipur royal family have questioned the order of a Rajasthan High Court, which was earlier held that the family had no right to register a suit in HC, either demanding possession of Sawai Man Singh Hall, which is also known as an old assembly, or Messen Profit.
The Town Hall is listed in March 1949, in the pre-universal time, IE, IE, in a covenant in a covenant between Sawai Man Singh II and Government of India (GOI), the ruler of the state of Jaipur.
Show full article
HC stopped the family suit, citing Article 363 of the Constitution. Article 363 courts from the jurisdiction of disputes arising from some treaties, agreements, covenant, collection, engagement, etc. between a royal state and Goi.
However, it was a “misinterpretation” of the law by HC while contesting the election, the Jaipur royal family members, in their appeal before the apex court, argued that Article 363 did not curb its right to demand possession of immovable properties, which was classified as “personal properties”.
The family appealed that Sawai Man Singh Town Hall was such a property. Since it was not in official use since 2001, the family said that it should capture. The family has also opposed a step by the Rajasthan government to convert the town hall into a museum.
On Monday, a bench led by Justice Prashant Mishra agreed to postpon the dispute after lawyers, representing the royal family, claimed that the case was not one of the ownership, but an attempt by the family to exercise its civil rights.
Saying that Article 363 applies in the case, as the state said, the family lawyer argued that the provision should be banned – not widely – not directly – not issues related to the covenant.
In this report, ThePrint breaks a significant legal question, which will probably affect the heritage property rights of the earlier royal families in India.
What is the matter
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 established the post -India dominance. On 30 March 1949, various rulers of “Rajasthan of the United States” carried out the related covenants and merged with India’s dominance.
With the enforcement of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, all the erstwhile states merged with the Republic of India, ie, India. Articles of the Constitution 291 and 366 (22) gave the power of laws to all the covenants.
According to the coverage, all the rulers accepted to end all movable and immovable properties for the dominance of India. However, some qualities continue as private or personal qualities, as an exception to this rule. The rulers had complete ownership rights of those properties. The coverage confirmed the conservation of those personal/personal qualities for the successors of the rulers.
The covenant signed between Sawai Man Singh II and the Government of India included “letter collateral and inventory”. According to the Jaipur Royal Family, Town Hall, the property was recorded in the dispute, “both were recorded under the statement showing private properties, both are immovable and running of the Maharaj of Jaipur, essentially that the royal family remained owned by the properties and the government did not take the properties.
In the current case, according to the inventory associated with the covenant’s “letter collateral”, Sawai Aad Singh, at the request of the Government of India, handed over the town hall to the Rajasthan government for a limited period, leading to limited user rights. According to the agreement, the government will use the Town Hall as one of its official campus.
The state government converted the town hall into the assembly, which was in use by the end of 2001. Subsequently, the family wrote to the state government, demanded recurrence of property. As the issue remained pending, the state government decided to set up a museum on the site in October 2022, inspiring the family to file a civil suit in a trial court, which rejected the state’s petition, as Article 363 stopped it.
However, on a state appeal, the High Court overturned the trial court order, in which the civil suit announced non-refraction.
What did HC rule
After discussing the objective behind Article 363, HC concluded that it was rejecting courts by entertaining the controversies related to pre-constitutional covenant covenant, entered the preceding rulers of Indian states while maintaining the stability of such agreements. The only exception to this is Article 143, which allows the President of India to take advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact, HC saw.
In the current dispute, HC concluded that under the conditions of the covenant, the state government took responsibility for the use and maintenance of the town hall. Primary status remained conservation of immovable properties for future heirs of the rulers, stating that the assets, however, were not for disposal in any manner.
In addition, HC announced that the said property could not be kept for commercial use, pulling the state government for efforts to do so. Covenant, HC held, also banned a joint venture commercial project involving the state and royal family.
On assets for sale, HC pointed to Part B of the coven, saying that only the qualities listed in that section can be dealt with by the royal family. “State Government … Given the right to use without determining any condition, these assets have the right to continue forever and use the same only for official purposes,” HC said.
It said that pre-uniqueness, the erstwhile rulers used areas under them “” “”rent (Income), And make public from public tax. After independence, the democratically elected government replaced the erstwhile rulers, the monarchy turned into a republic. “In such circumstances, the qualities are mentioned in the qualities [the] Covenant is for use forever by the government [of India] For official purposes and with the right of ownership [with] Legal successor of [the] The erstwhile ruler of Jaipur, “HC saw.
Petitioner’s argument on Article 363
Implementing Article 363 is central for this dispute, the royal family claims that since it only enhances its rights to re -prepare the town hall, the constitutional provision was abstract. The family said that its ownership of the town hall was not in question, and clarifies the covenant.
The family said that the coven classified the royal properties into two categories- the ruler and the personal qualities of the state properties. The coven made a mechanism only to identify the personal qualities already existing the ruler, which, with Goi, settled on classifying certain qualities as private.
“Once the Government of India admitted that a particular property was private property, such acceptance only meant that the government believed that the properties in the question were always the private assets of the ruler,” the appeal presented.
Not directly related to the covenant, the dispute concerned its general right under civil laws, which was to prevent any unauthorized use of its property, the family said. The covenant, the family clarified, was only to establish its ownership and there was no discord during the disposal.
The family, which mentioned its communication with the state on various occasions in support of their dispute, claimed that the Rajasthan government illegally closed the Town Hall Complex, out of the border for the family.
Drawing support from the 1971 Supreme Court’s decision, the family stated that Article 363 was to be interpreted strictly, and the courts were to be read narrowly read out the sections that excluded the jurisdiction, without giving them a highly-wide interpretation. And, in that case, the courts would have to listen to the disputes that only had a casual relationship with the covenant.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also read: 2021 Bengal Post-Pole Violence: Why SC cited ‘TMC’s link’ while setting 4 accused on separate bail