ADHUNIK GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. ETC. versus STATE OF RAJAS1HAN & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 28-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ADHUNIK GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMm LTD. ETC. 
v. 
t 
STATE OF RAJAS1HAN & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1989 
B 
[G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.) 
•
lf" 
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate 
Act, 1963: Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(f) and 7-'Estate'-What is-'Land' .. 
situated within boundaries of Umaid Bhavan Palace-Held do notfall 
within l}efinition of' estate'. 
-· 
c 
Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction of Transfers) Act, 1973: 
Section 3(2)-Prohibition on transfer of /and-Transfer effected after 
:1 
August 16, 1971-Held not void. 
After attainment of Independence, the rulers of the erstwhile 
•
D 
princely States of Rajasthan entered into a Covenant with the Govern-
ment of India for integrating their States into one. Article 12 of the said 
Covenant provided for the private properties of the rulers of the Coven-
anting States, and clause (i) thereof prescribed that the ruler of each of 
the Covenanting States; shall be entitled to full ownership, use and 
enjoyment of all private properties. The immovable properties of the 
)<' 
E 
rulers were divided into three calegories, Category 'A', 'B' and 'C'. 
The Maharaja of Jodhpur was one such ruler who integrated his 
,.. 
State in the Union. Category 'C' of the Connant listed the properties of 
the Maharaja as his absolute property over which he had full rights of 
disposal, and the property known as 'Umaid Bhavan Palace' was i 
F 
included in this category. 
The Maharaja who was the signatory to the Covenant died in 
1952, and after his death he was succeeded by his son who was a minor 
at that time. Because the successor was a minor an administrator was 
appointed for the purpose of administration of the estate. 
G 
In 1964, the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly enacted the Rajas-
than Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 
which received the assent of the President on 6th April, 1964. The Act -i. 
was enacted to provide for the acquisition of the estates of land owners. 
Section 7 thereof provided for the issuance of a Notification by the State 
H 
Government appointing a date for the vesting in the State Government 
848 
.. .. , 
... 
I 
SAHAKARI SAMITI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
849 
of the estates of all land owners situated anywhere in the State. Exer-
A 
cising powers under the aforesaid section, a Notification was issued on 
11th August, 1964 by which the State Government appointed lst 
September, 1964 as the date of vesting of all the estates of land owners. 
The three petitioners in the writ petitions were parties who had 
8 
purchased respective areas of land for price by registered sale deeds, 
j 
two dated 4.11.71 and one dated 5.H.71 from the erstwhile ruler of 
Jodhpur state. 
Notices under section 9A of the Act were issued on 19.ll.1975 to 
these parties by the Collector stating that the. transfers of the lands were 
null and void and they shall deliver possession before 28th September, 
1975 or within 10 days of the receipt of the notice whichever is later to 
the Sub-Divisional Officer. This was followed by another notice on 8th 
December, 1975 by which possession of the lands were taken by affixing 
a notice as required by Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and 
Acquisition of Land Owners' Estate Rules 1964. 
The petitioners contended in the courts below that their land was 
not liable to acquisition under the Act and sought a direction that the 
orders and notices be quashed. It was contended that in the definition of 
'land' as defined in section 2F, provide for properties which shall not be 
c 
D 
'!I 
included within the definition of 'land' and as the property in the E 
instant case was excluded from the definition of 'land' the properties of 
the petitioners could not be acquired under section 7 of the Land 
Reforms Act . 
A Single Judge of the High Court on an examination of the list of 
Category 'C' to the Covenant, and the material on the record came to F 
the conclusion that the lands fell within the property included in the 
Schedule of private properties in Category 'C' and therefore it being a 
private property included in the Inventory according to the Covenant 
the acquisition under the provision of the Act was bad. It was further 
held that the transfer made by the ex-ruler in favour of the petitioners 
was not bad. 
The trustees of the Major Maharaja Hari Singh Benefit of 
~ Defence Service Personnel and Charitable Trust, the appellants in one 
of the appeals also filed a Writ petition which came up

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.