SUPREME COURT YOUNG LAWYERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition, which is in the nature of public interest litigation, has been filed seeking the issuance of the following directions/mandates to the respondents:

(2.) THE factual matrix, on which the aforesaid reliefs are claimed, may be summed up thus. After the country attained freedom from the British Rule in 1947, the process for merger of princely States started. There was one princely State known as "Rampur Bushehar". it appears that at the relevant time the ruler of the said State, namely respondent No. 5, was a minor and therefore, his mother, acting as his guardian, executed the covenant with the Central Government for the merger of the Rampur Bushehar State with Union of India. As per that covenant, the State was to merge with the Union of: India and in lieu thereof certain amount of money was to be paid annually by way of privy purse to the Ruler. Besides that, some property, detail of which was to be furnished by the guardian of respondent No. 5, was to be left with respondent No. 5, as his absolute property. It is alleged that after the covenant was executed, respondent No. 5 did not surrender to the Government of India the property other than that was reserved by him as his private property, under the covenant and continued to enjoy its usufruct, thereby causing pecuniary loss to the State. Further it is alleged that in the year 1955 H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953 came into force and under the provisions of Section 27(1) of the said Act, even the property reserved under the covenant as personal property of respondent No. 5, vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, but respondent No. 5 continued to occupy the said property till the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into operation in July, 1973 and in this way he enjoyed the usufruct of that property also which was reserved under the covenant as his personal/private property, but vested in the State by virtue of the provisions of Section 27(1) of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 exercised his political clout and authority to continue to hold the possession of the property, which was surrendered in 1948, being in excess of the property reserved by him, as also the property reserved by him as the personal property, after coming into force of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953 and in this illegality the officials of the State Government assisted him, inasmuch as they did not carry out necessary corrections in the revenue papers and continued to record respondent No. 5 as the owner of the entire property and also did not take any steps to take the possession of the property from respondent No. 5. It is stated that though earlier the matter was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation by the State Government and the said agency suggested the closure of the matter with the observation that there was no material available to substantiate the allegations, later on an enquiry was got conducted by the State Government through an I.A.S. Officer and that Officer, vide report dated 15.5.2002 concluded as follows: From the above discussion it is apparent that the erstwhile Rulers of Bushahar State in connivance with the Government officials/ officers managed to retain lands which were to vest in the Government as per agreement signed between Rajmata Shanti Devi of Bushahar State on behalf of Raja Virbhadra Singh (being minor), his heirs and successors in March, 1948 with the Government of India. They in connivance with the Government officials/officers also managed to retain land which were to vest in the Government w.e.f. 26.1.1955 under Section 27(1) of the "H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estate Act, 1953. It is worth while to mention here that issue of non implementation of 1948 agreement has never been raised in any Court and is not under dispute and as such, final. These lands were alienated by the members of the Ruling family through sale, gift, acquisition, sale of timber etc. and they obtained wrongful gain for themselves and consequent wrongful loss to the State exchequer.

(3.) ON merits, it is alleged that respondent No. 5 had reserved 7805 10 Bighas of cultivable land and 1300 Bighas forest as his personal property, pursuant to the covenant executed between his mother, acting as his guardian, and the representative of the Central Government. It is alleged that out of 7805 10 Bighas land 2790 04 Bighas land stood vested in the State Government under Sections 27(1) and 11 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953, while the rest of the land, being under personal cultivation of respondent No. 5 and its revenue being less than Rs. 125/ , did not fall within the purview of Section 27(1) and so it remained with respondent No. 5. In a supplementary affidavit, filed by the Chief Secretary, on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is stated that the enquiry officer, who allegedly recorded the aforesaid conclusions, had a personal bias against respondent No. 5, because he had the feeling that certain adverse entries in his annual confidential report had been made by respondent No. 5 (when he was the Chief Minister) on account of some bias and he had in fact challenged those entries by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, making respondent No, 5 as a party to the said application and alleging mala fides against him.