Jaipur Court Rejects State's Claim on Royal Bungalows Due to Delay
An additional district court in Jaipur made a significant ruling on Thursday. The court dismissed the state government's claim over two prime properties in the Civil Lines area. These properties are Bungalow No. 15 and Bungalow No. 16.
The court granted relief to members of the former Jaipur royal family. It based its decision on the ground of delay in legal proceedings.
Court Order Details
Additional District Judge Mukesh Parnami passed this order. He was hearing a suit filed by the directorate of estates. This directorate operates within the general administration department.
The court held that the state government failed to initiate proceedings within the limitation period. Article 112 of the Limitation Act allows the government 30 years to recover possession of property.
The state claimed ownership from December 28, 1971. This date followed the abolition of recognition to former rulers under Article 363 of the Constitution.
However, the government issued a notice to Brigadier Bhawani Singh only in May 2003. The court noted this action came well beyond the permissible 30-year period.
Defendants and Claims
The suit named several defendants from the royal family:
- Brigadier Bhawani Singh's wife, Padmini Devi
- His daughter, Diya Kumari, who is the current deputy chief minister
- His grandson, Padmanabh Singh
The state government sought substantial financial compensation:
- ₹10 crore as consolidated rent from 1971 until the filing of the suit
- ₹10 lakh per month thereafter
Legal Arguments and Outcome
Counsel for the defendants, Ramesh Sharma, opposed the state's claim. He argued that the cause of action arose in 1971. According to him, the state could only act until 2002 under the limitation law.
The court accepted this argument. It dismissed the suit as time-barred. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in property disputes.
The ruling underscores a legal victory for the former royal family. It also sets a precedent for similar cases involving delayed government claims.
