COLONEL HIS HIGHNESS SAWAI TEJ SINGHJI, MAHARAJA OF ALWAR versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 06-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
62 
COLONEL HIS HIGHNESS SAWAI TEJ SINGHJI, 
MAHARAJA OF ALWAR 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
October 6, 1978 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARKARIA, N. L. lh!TWALIA, 
A. D. KosnAL AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950-Art. 363-Covcnants agreeing to merger of 
princely states-Provision in Covenants that any dispute relating to any jtem-
C 
of property of Ruler or state property to be referred for decision to a nominee 
of Government of India and such decision shall be final and binding on all 
concerned-C@nzrnunication of the Govern1nent of India t~ the effect that the 
settlen1ent of the inventory of properties lVas an integral part of an overall 
agreement in respect of all outstanding 1natters of dispute-fVhet!ier such 
•decision• an agreement and could be enforced by the Ruler-Bar to ;urisdic· 
lion of Civil Courts under Art. 363. 
D 
The appellant who was the Ruler of a princely state entered into a cove-
nant agreeing to merge his state into a union called the United States of 
Matsya. 
The Matsya Covenant, by Art. XI Cl. (2) provided that the ruler 
of each state shall furnish to the Raj Pramukh an inventory of all the im-
movable properties, securities and cash balances held by him 
as 
private 
property and cl. (3) provided that if any dispute arose as to whether 
E 
any item of property was the private property of the ruler or the state 
property it shall be referred to such person as the' Government of India 
may nominate and the decision of that person shall be final and binding 
on all parties. 
The appellant furnished an 
inventory 
of 
all 
propertfes 
claimed to be his private property. 
Sometime later the rulers of the 
const.ituent States of Matsya entered into a Covenant with the Rajpramukh 
of the United State of Rajasthan for nlerger of· their ,States into the 
F 
State of Rajasthan in abrogation of the 1'1atsya Covenant. 
The Rajasthan 
Covenant by Art. XII, CL (2) provided for the 
s~ttle1ne11t 
of 
'.lny 
dis-
pute as to \vhether t.he property was private property or state property 
by reference to such person as the Government of India may nominate 
in 
con3t1ltation \Vith the Rajpratnukh and tha.t the decision of such per<>on shall 
be final and binding on the parties. 
G 
The ~finistry of States, Government of Indin wrote on 14th 
September. 
1949 to the appellant that the settlement of the inventory was an integral par1 
of an overall agreement in respect of all ou!.standing matters of dispute and 
did not stand by 
it~elf. 
After correspondence with the Government of India 
the appellant received a \Vritten communication intimating the decision of the 
Go·•ernnicnt of India in respect of 25 items of the ~roperty_ 
ff 
The rippellant claimed that four buildings wh~ch wer~ in occupation of the 
State Government had been declared as his private properties in the inventory 
appended to the letter of the Government of India and that the State Govern-
. . 
• 
' ,. 
TBJ SINGHJI V. UNION 
63 
ment should pay rent to him in respect of those buildings. This claim of the 
BoPpellant hnving been rejected, he filed a suit in the district 
court 
for 
a 
declaration that the properties were his private properties and that the respon-
dents should be ordered to pay rent to him. 
A. 
The suit \Vas transferred by the High Court to itself. The High 
Court 
dismissed the suit on the ground that adjudication of the dispute was barred 
by Art. 363 of the Constitution. 
B 
·• 
In appeal to, this Court it was contended that the letter of 14th September, 
1949 wns the result of a decision arrived at in pursuance of cl. (3) of Art. XI 
of Matsya Covenant and cl. (2) of Art. XII of the Rajasthan Covenant and 
n1ust be construed as a decision of the Government \)f Jndia. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. The decision sought to be enforced is 
an 
agreement 
hit 
by 
Art. 363 of the Constitution and the High Court was right in dismissing the 
suit. [74H] 
2. The so-called decision was nothing but 
::.·n 
agree1nent 
bet\veen 
the 
Gove1 nrnent of Jndin and the appellant. 
The Letter 
dearly stated th<tt 
the 
inventory furnished by the plaintiff was discussed with him at New De1h1 
and that a copy of the final inventory of the appellant's 
private 
properties. 
which had the approval of the Government of India in the Ministry of States, 
was forwarded to him. 
Under clause (3) Art. XI of the Mat~ya Cvvenant 
as also clause (2) of Art. XII of the Rajasthan Covenh11t, no approval of the 
Ministry 

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