(1.) DESPITE half a century of independence, overthrow of the foreign rule, abolition of monarchial system of Governments and the sea changes brought about in the socio-economic-political system in the Democratic Republic of India, the successors-in-interest of the former ruler of mysore State have challenged the jurisdiction of the Legislature in enacting laws with the purpose of depriving them of the privileges allegedly conferred upon the ruler in lieu of the surrender of sovereignty in favour of the Dominion of India. Claim to the properties has been sought to be protected under the umbrella stated to have been provided by the Instrument of accession and Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State legislature in enacting the laws with respect to the properties of the former ruler of Mysore has also been challenged on the grounds of inherent lack of jurisdiction under Part XI read with schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. In order to hold that the action of the State Legislature was unconstitutional, reliance is placed upon various provisions of Part III and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. All these pleas and the contention raised are with respect to the dispute raised regarding the acquisition by legislative action of the Bangalore Palace (hereinafter called 'the Palace'), admittedly the acknowledged private property of the former ruler of Mysore. Controversy raised is with respect to the enactment of The Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and transfer) Act, 1996 (Karnataka Act No. 18/1996) (hereinafter called 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE petitioners have stated that the value of the Palace and the adjoining lands is Rs. 3,000 crores, approximately. It is submitted that the Palace was built in 1915 on the designs of Windsor palace of England and comparises of 477 acres of land and other buildings meant for the use of the staff and ancillary purposes. FACTUAL BACK GROUND:
(3.) IN order to set the controversy at rest, it is necessary to take note of some of the facts as incorporated in WP No. 32175/1996. The facts in other Writ Petitions are admitted to be identical.