The Delhi High Court ruled that neither Late Maharaja Ranjit Singh Gaekwad nor his legal heirs are entitled to continue indefinitely in a government accommodation in Safdarjung Lane in New Delhi, which was provided to him by virtue of him becoming a Member of Parliament.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said it did not find any reason to interfere with the order of eviction which was passed in November 2001.
“Neither Maharaja Ranjit Singh nor the legal heirs are entitled to continue indefinitely in a Government accommodation,” the high court observed while dismissing an appeal filed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh against the eviction order.
The Maharaja Ranjit Singh Gaekwad was allotted the government accommodation at 7, Safdarjung Lane in 1980 in his capacity as Member of the Parliament. He remained Member of the Parliament till November 27, 1989 and the allotment was cancelled on December 27, 1989.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh did not vacate the said house. Eviction proceedings were initiated and finally eviction order was passed on November 28, 2001.
Who is Maharaja Ranjit Singh Gaekwad?
Maharaja Ranjit Singh Gaekwad was the second son of Late Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh Gaekwad who was the erstwhile ruler of Baroda State. The late Maharaja Sir Pratap had signed the Instrument of Merger with the Union of India on March 21, 1949.
As per the terms of the Covenant, the private properties belonging to Maharaja Sir Pratap were to be retained by the Maharaja of Baroda and, other properties, which were not his personal properties, became the exclusive properties of Government of India.
The Maharaja of Baroda was the owner of 8.2 acres plus another 6.12 acres of land in Delhi at the time of accession of the State of Baroda to India. In lieu of the property, the Government of India took a decision to treat Nazarbagh Palace in Baroda as private property of the Maharaja.
The then Maharaja Fateh Singh, who was the elder brother Maharaja Ranjit Singh Gaekwad, acknowledged the decision made by the Government of India but requested the Government that he should be given a place of residence in Delhi.
The Government of India then informed Maharaja Fateh Singh that on account of acute shortage of accommodation, it would be unable to allot a plot in New Delhi for the Maharaja.
The Government of India in April 15, 1976, made a proposal for allotment of plot of 600 square yard in Jor Bagh, Delhi, subject to certain terms and conditions, and Maharaja Fateh Singh was requested to communicate his acceptance within 15 days positively.
The Maharaja Fateh Singh did not comply with the terms and conditions of the proposal, however, continued representing to the government for a plot of land.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh Geakwad, who was MP between 1980 and 1989, was informed through a letter dated September 27, 2000 that he was unauthorizedly retaining Bungalow No.7, Safdarjung Lane, and he was requested to vacate the premises in question.
A notice was issued to Maharaja Ranjit Singh Gaekwad by the Estate Office under Section 4 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 on October 20, 2000.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh moved a petition in 2002 was before the high court against the eviction order. The high court on September 03, 2002 passed an interim order granting stay in the matter of eviction. Finally, on August 14, 2020, the high court in it final decision upheld the eviction order.
In their appeal against the 2020 judgment, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, now deceased, and Srimant Sangram Sinh Pratap Singh Gaekwad, who is also a legal heir of the Maharaja, argued that the high court judge “erred” in appreciating the fact that the government of India failed to allot suitable plots of land in lieu of the occupation of properties belonging to Maharaja of Baroda.
The high court was of the opinion that, “the Maharaja/ legal heirs of the Maharaja are not at all entitled to an allotment of a plot as claimed by them”. It highlighted that the offer made to the Maharaja in 1976 for a plot of land in Jor Bagh was not responded.
“There was only a proposal made on behalf of the Government of India subject to certain terms and conditions, and the then Maharaja was required to give his acceptance to the proposal within 15 days. The Maharaja has certainly not given any acceptance,” the high court observed.
“This Court has carefully gone through all the material documents on record as well as all the judgments relied upon, and is of the considered opinion that the Maharaja/ legal heirs of the Maharaja are not at all entitled to an allotment of a plot as claimed by them,” the high court added.
