STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the disposal of D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 329/84 also.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 1391/76 was filed by late Shreeji Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar, whose legal representatives have been brought on record, against the officers of the State of Rajasthan and the State of Rajasthan, challenging the impugned demand dated 24-2-1975 (Annex. 5) issued by the Tehsildar, Girwa, for Rs. 34099.89 relating to the land revenue and irrigation charges under S. 3 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and the order of the Tehsildar dated 18-3-1975 (Annex. 6) and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 22-6-1976 (Annex. 7). The properties for which the demand has been raised are: (i) Samore Bagh palace and garden, (ii) Champa Bagh palace and garden, (iii) Sahelion Ki Bari, (iv) Khas Odi, (v) Gordhan Vilas and (vi) Sheel Nikunj.

(3.) It was contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that the aforesaid properties for which the respondents have sought to impose land and irrigation charges are not liable to such land and irrigation charges under the Act. The learned single Judge by his judgment dated 26-4-1984 held, inter alia, that properties Nos. 1 to 4. were included in the inventory being palaces and gardens and, therefore, they were excluded from the definition of "land" under the Act and could not be assessed to land revenue. It was also observed by the Court that in view of the agreement between the ex-Ruler and the Government, the petitioners, after 1971, are liable to pay irrigation charges as agreed by them. If it is not paid, the respondents will be entitled to ask for irrigation charges at the usual rates in accordance with law. But before 1971 in so far Sahelion Ki Bari is concerned, irrigation charges of a sum of Rs. 125.00 p.m. cannot be asked for. The High Court by the said order has quashed the impugned demand in respect of properties Nos. 1 to 4. That part of the order of the High Court is under challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 328/84. However, in respect of properties known as Gordhan Vilas and Sheel Nikunj, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the ex-Ruler had proprietary right in the said properties and as the said properties were not included in the inventory, they were liable to all the advantages and disadvantages of the Act. The land comprised in the said properties come within the definition of "land" under the Act and, therefore, they were liable to land revenue under Section 3 of the Act. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition so far as properties Nos. 5 and 6 are concerned. Against it, the petitioners have filed a special appeal, which is registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 329/84.