UMADEVI GANGADHARRAO PATWARDHAN Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are said to be successors-in-interest of the erstwhile Maharaja of Miraj State. By signing an instrument of accession on 16/8/1947, the State of Miraj acceded to the Dominion of India. The instrument of accession also provided that the then existing dominion legislature will have no authority to make any law for the State of Miraj authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose. However, the said instrument also provided that if the dominion needs some land belonging to Maharaja, the said land shall be transferred to the dominion on such terms as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to a letter dtd. 7/8/1956, which is written by the Under Secretary to the then Government of Bombay and is addressed to the Maharaja, whereby it was stated in response to the letter of Maharaja dtd. 19/1/1956, that the Government had decided that Miraj Fort is in the private ownership of the then Rajasaheb. On the basis of the said letter dtd. 7/8/1956, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the building in question is part of Miraj Fort and was never transferred to the Government. In this view, the submission is that the respondents in this case do not have any right to direct demolition of the building or construct/reconstruct any new building.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader relies upon the revenue entry made on 10/12/1991 and submits that it is the State of Maharashtra which is recorded in the revenue records and as such, the claim of the petitioners is legally not tenable.