Holding

Land situated within the Umaid Bhavan Palace is excluded from the definition of “land” under Section 2F and therefore does not constitute an “estate” under Section 2B, rendering the State’s acquisition and notices void.

Summary

After the integration of the princely State of Jodhpur, the former ruler’s private property, including the Umaid Bhavan Palace, was listed as Category C in the 1949 inventory. The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land‑Owners’ Estate Act, 1963 issued a notification vesting all estates of land‑owners in the State, and notices were served to three purchasers who had bought parcels within the palace grounds in 1971. The petitioners argued that the parcels were excluded from the definition of “land” under Section 2F of the Act because they formed part of a palace listed in the inventory, and therefore could not be acquired. The Supreme Court held that the parcels fell within the exception for forts, palaces and building plots, were not “land” and consequently not “estate” under Section 2B, rendering the acquisition invalid. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s decision and quashed all notices and actions against the petitioners.

Issues considered

The whether the parcels of land within the boundaries of Umaid Bhavan Palace fall within the definition of “land” under Section 2F of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land‑Owners’ Estate Act, 1963.
The consequent question of whether such parcels constitute an “estate” under Section 2B and can be vested in the State under Section 7 of the same Act.
The effect of Section 3(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Act, 1973 and its repeal on the validity of the transfers made in 1971.

Legislation cited

Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners' Estate Act, 1963s. 2(b), s. 2(d), s. 2(f), s. 2(g), s. 7, s. 9A
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956s. 158
Rajasthan Urban Property Ceiling Act, 1972s. 5
Rajasthan Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Act, 1973s. 3(2)
Rajasthan Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Repeal Act, 1978

Subjects

land reformacquisition of estatedefinition of landurban property restrictionrepeal of legislationagricultural vs non‑agricultural landprivate property of former rulersinterpretation of statutory definitions

Judgment

ADHUNIK GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMm LTD. ETC.
A t
v.
STATE OF RAJAS1HAN & ANR.

FEBRUARY 28, 1989

B [G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.)
lf"
•
..-·
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate
Act, 1963: Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(f) and 7-'Estate'-What is-'Land'
situated within boundaries of Umaid Bhavan Palace-Held do notfall
within l}efinition of'estate'.
c Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction of Transfers) Act, 1973:
Section 3(2)-Prohibition on transfer of /and-Transfer effected after
August 16, 1971-Held not void. :1
After attainment of Independence, the rulers of the erstwhile
D princely States of Rajasthan entered into a Covenant with the Govern-
ment of India for integrating their States into one. Article 12 of the said
Covenant provided for the private properties of the rulers of the Coven-
anting States, and clause (i) thereof prescribed that the ruler of each of
•
the Covenanting States; shall be entitled to full ownership, use and
enjoyment of all private properties. The immovable properties of the )<'
E rulers were divided into three calegories, Category 'A', 'B' and 'C'.

The Maharaja of Jodhpur was one such ruler who integrated his
State in the Union. Category 'C' of the Connant listed the properties of
,..
the Maharaja as his absolute property over which he had full rights of
disposal, and the property known as 'Umaid Bhavan Palace' was
F included in this category.

The Maharaja who was the signatory to the Covenant died in
1952, and after his death he was succeeded by his son who was a minor
i
at that time. Because the successor was a minor an administrator was
appointed for the purpose of administration of the estate.
G
In 1964, the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly enacted the Rajas-
than Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 -i.
which received the assent of the President on 6th April, 1964. The Act
was enacted to provide for the acquisition of the estates of land owners.
Section 7 thereof provided for the issuance of a Notification by the State
H Government appointing a date for the vesting in the State Government
848
SAHAKARI SAMITI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 849

of the estates of all land owners situated anywhere in the State. Exer- A

..., cising powers under the aforesaid section, a Notification was issued on
11th August, 1964 by which the State Government appointed lst
September, 1964 as the date of vesting of all the estates of land owners.

The three petitioners in the writ petitions were parties who had 8
purchased respective areas of land for price by registered sale deeds,
j two dated 4.11.71 and one dated 5.H.71 from the erstwhile ruler of
Jodhpur state.

Notices under section 9A of the Act were issued on 19.ll.1975 to
these parties by the Collector stating that the. transfers of the lands were
null and void and they shall deliver possession before 28th September, c
1975 or within 10 days of the receipt of the notice whichever is later to
the Sub-Divisional Officer. This was followed by another notice on 8th
December, 1975 by which possession of the lands were taken by affixing
a notice as required by Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and
Acquisition of Land Owners' Estate Rules 1964.
D
The petitioners contended in the courts below that their land was
not liable to acquisition under the Act and sought a direction that the
orders and notices be quashed. It was contended that in the definition of
'land' as defined in section 2F, provide for properties which shall not be
'!I included within the definition of 'land' and as the property in the E
instant case was excluded from the definition of 'land' the properties of
the petitioners could not be acquired under section 7 of the Land
...
I
Reforms Act .

A Single Judge of the High Court on an examination of the list of
Category 'C' to the Covenant, and the material on the record came to F
the conclusion that the lands fell within the property included in the
Schedule of private properties in Category 'C' and therefore it being a
private property included in the Inventory according to the Covenant
the acquisition under the provision of the Act was bad. It was further
held that the transfer made by the ex-ruler in favour of the petitioners
was not bad.
G
The trustees of the Major Maharaja Hari Singh Benefit of
~ Defence Service Personnel and Charitable Trust, the appellants in one
of the appeals also filed a Writ petition which came up before the High
Court. The High Court relying on its earlier decision allowed the peti-
tion and quashed the notification. H
¥

•
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R. J
Letters Patent Appeals were tiled by the State Government and
A t
the Trust and the Division Bench disposed of all the appeals and came to
)>
a different conclusion than the Single Judge's who decided the writ
petitions. The Division Bench held that the repeal of the Rajasthan
Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Act, 1973 by the Rajasthan
Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Repeal Act, 1978, the
B cloud that had been cast on the title of the purchases had been
removed. ~

In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the
appellants that the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land
Owners' Estate Act, 1963 was brought into force in 1964 and that
..........
according to the definition of 'estate', in section 2B it could refer to
c either land or right, title or interest in land held by a land owner, and
'land' was defined in section 2F which was an inclusive definition, and
that it first refers to land held for the purpose of agriculture and that ~
the lands in the instant case, were not agricultural lands they do not fall
within the ambit of the definition of 'land'. It was also contended that
D the Division Bench could not come to a different conclusion than that
which was reached by the Single Judge.

On behalf of the State, it was contended that the suit property
falls within the boundary of the Umaid Bhavan Palace according to the
site plan and that it could not be conclusively held that the properties ,. ~
E were not agricultural lands.
'!"
Allowing the appeals, and setting aside the judgment passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court, this Court,
,.
~

HELD: 1. No action under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land

~
Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 could be ";-
F
taken against the appellant and all notices or actions taken are thus l
;
quashed. [864F-G I

2. It is clear that the lands in the instant case will not fall within
the definition of 'land' as described in sec. 2(g) and therefore it could
G not vest in the State not it would be acquired under the provisions of the
Act and in that event these appellants are entitled to hold their lands
and the question whether. the lands are agricultural or not is not very
-+-
material. [858D-E]

3. Section 2B clearly talks of land or right, title or interest in land
H held by land owner and land is defined in Section 2F. It is therefore
SAHAKARI SAMIT! v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 851

clear that if this property did not fall within the ambit of the definition
of 'land' it could not he said to be 'estate' under Section 2B and there- A
fore could not vest in the State under Section 7. I861 F]

4. The lands were within the boundaries of the Umaid Bhavan
Palace which is the private property in accordance with the inventory
prepared and approved by Government of India, and therefore will not B
fall within the ambit of the definition of 'land' as defined in Section 2F
and thus will not fall within the ambit of the 'estate' which could vest
nuder the provisions of this Section. [863D]

5. Section 3(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restrictions of
Transfers) Act, 1973 was enacted keeping in view the Rajasthan Urban
Property Ceiling Act. Section 3(2) did not provide that the transfer will c
be invalid but it only provided that inspite of the transfer the property
wiU be deemed to be owned by such person thereby meaning the trans-
feror so that when the Ceiling Act is brought into force the transferor
may not take advantage of the transfer to defeat the provisions of the
Ceiling Act. [859C] D

6. In fact, after the Ceiling Act was brought into force a prohibi-
tion was again imposed on the transfer and admittedly the transfers in
the instant case are not after the Rajasthan Urban Property Ceiling Act
1972 which provided by section 5 that the transfers made after the
commencement of the Act was null and void. It could not, therefore, be E

.. said that the transfers in the instant case after August 16, 1971 were
void. [859G]

(C.A. No. 1145/87-Naveen Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.. v.
.

State of Rajasthan was permitted to be withdrawn, as the appellants
had chosen to come to this Court when in fact they were not parties in F
the judgment before the High Court.). [864G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1144-48 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1986of the Rajasthan G
High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 3, 4, 5 of 1978 and 79 of
y 1981 and 354 of 1984.

Dr. L.M. Singhvi, G.L. Sanghi, V.M. Tarkunde, Dalveer
Bhandari, Ms. Rachna Joshi, K.N. Toshi, Lekh Raj Mehta, Gopal
Singh, Sushi! K. Jain and Sudharshan Atreya for the Appellants. H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1989] 1 S.C.R.

A G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General P.S. Poti, -t-
Badridas Sharma, R.C. Maheshwari and Manoj Jain for the Res-
pondents. ·'

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B •OZA, J. These appeals have come to this Court against the judg-
ment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan dated
29.9.86 wherein the learned Judges disposed of the following appeals
by the impugned judgment and against this after grant of leave these
appeals are before us:

( 1) The State of Rajas than and Anr. v. Prajapati Grah Nirman
c Samiti Ltd., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 3 of 1978.

(2) The State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Adhunik Grah Nirman
Samiti Limited, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 4 of 1978.

D (3) The State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Mis. Jai Marwar Com-
pany Pvt. Ltd., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No, 5of1978.

(4) Trustees of Major Maharaja Hari Singh Benefit of Defence
Service Personnal Charitable Trust v. The State of Rajasthan
and Others, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 79 of 1981.
E
(5) State of Rajasthan and another v. Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji,
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 354of1984.

Initially the three writ petitions were filed before the High Court
of Rajasthan by i) Prajapati Grab Nirman Samiti Limited, ii) Adhunik
F Grab Nirman Samiti Ltd. and iii) M/s. Jai Marwar Company Private
Limited. It was alleged that these three parties purchased respective
areas of land for price by registered sale deeds two dated 4.11.71 and
one dated 5.11.71 from Shri Gaj Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the
Jodhpur State. These lands form part of Khasra No. 421 in the revenue
records. There is yet another adjacent land which also was in dispute
G in other matters than these three which was Khasra No. 426.

Facts which are not in dispute are that after attainment of inde- ...._
pendence on 15th August, 1947 the rulers of the erstwhile princely
States of Banswara, .Bikaner, Bundi, Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jaisalmer,
Jhalawar, Jodhpur, Kishangarh, Kota, Mewar, Partabgarh, Shahpura
H and Tonk entered into a Covenant with the Government of India

•
SAHAKARI SAMm v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [OZA, J.J 853

1 integrating these states into one. Article 12 of the said Covenant
A
provided for the private properties of the rulers of the Covenanting
States. In clause (1) of this article it was prescribed that the ruler of
each of the Covenating State shall be entitled to the full ownership,
use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State
properties), belonging to him on the date of his making over the
~.
administration of the State. In accordance with tlie aforesaid clause in B
the Covenant, a list of private properties of the ruler of the former
State of Jodhpur was prepared and it was approved by the Govern-
ment of India on 24th March, 1949. In the said list of private properties
'
.t~ the immovable properties were divided into three categories. Category
'A' consists of properties which were to be regarded as the family
property of the Maharaja of Jodhpur and which will not be transfer-
red. Category 'B' consists of properties which were to be regarded as c
family properties of Majaraja of Jodhpur but which will be disposable
+ by him if he and his heir agree to do so. Category 'C' consists of
property which is the absolute property of the Maharaja of Jodhpur
with full rights of disposal. In the case in hand we are only concerned
with Category 'C' property and in this category Umaid Bhawan Palace D
alongwith the area as per plan attached including the Chittar Tank and
the Bijolai Tank and buildings wasincluded.

-. Maharaja Hanwant Singh who was the signatory to the Covenant
died in 1952 and after his death he was succeeded by his son Shir Ga j
Singh who was minor at that time. During the minority of Shri Gaj E

-
i
Singh an administrator was appointed for the purpose of administra-
tion of the estate of the minor Maharaja.

In 1964 the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly enacted the Act

f
r- which received the assnet of the President of India on 6.4.1964 and was
published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 13.4.1964. The Act was F
enacted to provide for the acquisition of the estates of landowners.
Under Section 7 of the Act a provision was made for issuing a notifica-
tion by the State Government appointing a date for the vesting in the
State Government of the estates or all landowners situated anywhere
in Rajasthan. In exercise of the powers under Section 7 a notification
was issued on 11th August, 1964 which was published in the Rajasthan G
"' _,.. Gazette dated 13.8.1964 and by this notification the State Government
appointed 1.9.1964 as the date of vesting of all the estates of land-
·Owners situated within the State.

Notice under Section 9A of the said Act were issued on
19. 11.1975_ to the petitioners by Collector, Jodhpur stating that trans- H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

fers of the aforesaid lands are null and void and they shall deliver
A
possession before 29 .11.1975 or within 10 days of the receipt of the
notice whichever is later, to the Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur. It
appears that one more notice dated 8.12.1975 was issued by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Jodhpur by which he appears to have taken the
possession of the aforesaid lands by affixing a notice as required by
B Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Own-
ers Estate Rules, 1964.

The petitioner's case before the Court below was that this land is
not liable to acquisition under the said Act and therefore they sought a
direction that the said orders and notices be quashed. It was contended
before the Court below that in the definition of 'land' as defined in
c Section 2F after sub-clause (ct) of this Act provide for properties which
shall not be included in the definition of 'land' and as this property fell
within the ambit of that property which was excluded from the defini-
tion of 'land' it was contended that it could not be acquired under the
provisions of Sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of
D Land-owners' Estate Act.

The learned Judge Justice M.L. Jain, after examining the list of
private properties and the material placed on record by both the
parties came to the conclusion that these lands falling within Survey
No. 421 which fell within the property included in the schedule of
E private properties in category 'C' and therefore it being a private pro-
perty included in the inventory prepared according to the Covenant,
the acquisition under the provisions of this Act was held to be bad. The ,,.
learned Judge on the basis of documents also came to the conclusion
that on .1.9.64 which was the relevant date notified as the date of
vesting this property was not agricultural land and was also included in
F the private property of the ruler of Jodhpur shown within the boun-
dary of the site plan of Umaid Bhawan Palace. Consequently the
learned Judge came to the conclusion that the transfer made by the
ex-ruler in favour of these petitioners was not bad.

The learned Judge considering the submissions came to the
G conclusion:

"Now, Shri Gaj Singh is an Ex-Ruler and therefore a land- .,._
owner. The Schedule I of the Inventory of his private pro-
perties also specified the properties which are his absolute
property with full rights of disposal. Item No. !(a) relating
H to Jodhpur is as follows:
SAHAKARI SAMm v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN !OZA, J.] 855

(a) Umaid Bhawan Palace as per plan attached in- A
eluding the Chittar Tank.

A plan was attached to the inventory which contains the
heading "site plan of Umaid Bhawan Palace. Private pro-
perty of His Highness and Maharaja Sahib Sahadir, Jodh-
pur, is shown in the red." It is admitted that the land in B
dispute to which these writ petitions relate falls within the
area bounded by the red line in the said site plan. It is,
therefore futile on the part of the State Government to
contend that the land though covered by the site plan, is
not part of the palace as specified in the inventory. The
State maintains that the Umaid Bhawan Palace has its own C
walled enclosure and further a long line of hills separates
the land in dispute from the main palace. The learned Dy.
+ Government Advocate urged that what the law excludes is
the palace and not all the lands which are shown in the site
plan. The Word 'palace' should be constructed only to in-
clude the area of the palace which is bounded by walls. I do D
not see any force in this argument because the definition of
land excludes the palace as specified in the inventory and
the inventory specifies the area of the Umaid Bhawan
Palace as pe1 plan attached and the attached plan includes
the land in dispute. I am, therefore unable to give the word
"palace" a restricted meaning as convassed by the learned E
Dy. Government Advocate. That being so, the disputed
land falls outside the estate and has consequently not
vested in the State Government."

·The learned Judge after considering various documents which were
filed and which were the records of the Government as regards the F
nature of the land as to whether it is agricultural land or not came to
the conclusion that:

"The documents clearly demonstrate that the land in dis-
pute is not an agricultural and rather it forms part of the
Abadi land. In the revenue records, Khasra Nos. are allot- G
ted not only to agricultural plot but they are also allotted to
Banjar land and to Abadi land as well. The copies of the
Jamabandi and Girdwari filed by the State shows that the
land is Padat and does not carry and land revenue. It is,
therefore, clear that the land in question being an Abadi
land is not covered by the provisions of the Act. It appears H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

as has been contended that the land in order that it vests in
A
the State Government, should be an agricultural land. The
amended long title of the Act states that it is an Act to
provide for the acquisition of the Estates of landowners
and for other measures of agrarian reforms removal of
intermediaries allotment of land to landless person,
B development of agriculture. If the acquired land is meant
for allotment to agriculturist then the land must be an
agricultural land as indicated above. The land in question
was not an agricultural land and if at all it was so at any
time in the past, it long ago ceased to be so at least as early
as in 1948, when according to the private property settle-
ment, it was included in the Umaid Bhawan Palace
c premises.''

Trustees of Major Maharaja Hari Singh Benefit of Defence
Service Personnel Charitable Trust also filed a petition before the
+
Rajasthan High Court. This pertains to Survey No. 426 and this came
D up for hearing before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan Shri
K.D. Sharma who while considering the matter observed:

"At the outset, I may observe that it is not disputed before
me that Umaid Bhawan Palace situated in Jodhpur is the
absolute property of Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, who
E has full rights of disposal thereof. This fact is borne out by
the inventory marked Annexure 1 which was prepared and
approved by the Government of India in pursuance of Arti-
cle 12 of the Covenant entered into by late ·Maharaja
Hanwant Singh with the Government of India at the time
of accession of the former Jodhpur State to the Union of
F India. It will not be out of place to mention that the term
'land' defined in section 2 of the Act as amended by the
amendment Act, 1975, does not include forts, palaces,
buildings and building plots specified in the inventory.
Hence, Umaid Bhawan Palace of which Maharaja Gaj
Singh is the absolute owner, does not fall within the
G purview of the definition of the word 'land' given in the
,cction 2 of the Act as amended upto date."

In Misc. Petition No. 1872/75 filed by Maharaja Shri Gai Singh
came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
Rajasthan Shri Justice Banerjee and by order dated 20.12.1983 relying
H on the judgment passed by Justice M.L. Jain in the case of Prajapati
SAHAKARI SAMTI1 v. STAIB OF RAJASTIIAN [OZA, J.J 857

Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan allowed the petition of
i A
Maharaja Gaj Singh and quashed the notices which were issued.

It is thereafter that the State Government in the matters decided
by Justice M.L. Jain and by Justice Banerjee and the trust, in the case
decided by Justice K.D. Sharma went up in appeal under Letters
Patent and by the impugn~d judgment, the Division Bench disposed of B
~ all these appeals and hence these appeals have come before us after
grant of leave.
I
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that this Act i.e.
"""""""( Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-owners Estate Act,
1963 was brought into force in 1964. According to the definition of
'Estate' it could refer to either land or right, title or interest in land c
held by landowner. The land, according to the learned counsel, is
-+- defined in section 2 sub-clause (f}. This definition is an inclusive defin-
ition and it first refers to land held for the purpose of agriculture.
Thereafter it has been further siated that it does not include forts,
palaces, buildings, building plots specified in the inventory and the D
inventory has also been defined in Section 2 sub-clause (g) which
refers to the inventory of the private properties made in pursuance of
the Covenant and finally approved by the Central Government.
Learned Counsel for the appellants mainly raised two questions: i)
:J, that as these lands were not agricultural lands they do not fall within
the ambit of this definition of 'land'. It was also contended that in any E
event as it falls within the boundaries of Umaid Bhawan Palace which

-7 '
is a property included in the inventory as the private properly of the
rulers of Jodhpur approved by the Government of India, this will not
fall within the ambit of the definition of 'land' in Section 2F. Conse-
J
-I
r-- quently it could not be said to be an estate as defined in Sec. 2b and as
such by application of this Act thie could not vest in the State Govern-. F
ment and in this view it was contended that the judgment delivered by
the Division Bench has omitted to decide this question and for no
reason felt that.let a reference under Section 12 be decided. It was also
contended that the Division Bench could not come to a different con-
clusion then one which was reached by Justice M.L. Jain and Hon'ble
Chief Justice Shri Banerjee. G

Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan attempted
+ to contended that this property falls within the boundary of the Umaid
Bhawan Palace according to the site plan could not be conclusively
hdd as an attempt was also made to suggest that the original plan
should have been summoned from the Central Government but the H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

learned counsel could not explain the admissions made at the various
A stages in these proceedings about the plan which was filed in these
petitions and also could not give any explanation as to why when these ·
proceedings have been going on since 1975, the State Government
could not obtain an official copy of the site plan from the Government
of India and produce it before the High Court. In fact the admission in
·B the documents and affidavits filed before the High Court and the
orders passed by the revenue authorities which have been at length
dealt with by the learned counsel and relied upon by the High Court
could not be explained by the learned counsel appearing for the State.
Similarly the question as to whether this land was agricultural or not
also was disputed by the learned counsel on the basis that the revenue
record entry showed that this has been agricultural land although the
C record referred to by the counsel for the appellants also indicated that
this area during the State times was included in the development plan
of the Jodhpur town. +
Counsel for parties frankly conceded that if the lands in dispute
o fall within the boundaries of the Umaid Bhawan Palace as shown in the
site plan which was part of the inventory prepared at the time of the
Covenant and approved by Government of India, it is clear that these
lands will not fall within the definition of 'land' as described in
Sec. 2(g) and therefore it could not vest in the State nor it could be
acquired under the provis.ions of this Act and in that event these appel-
E Ian ts are entitled to hold their lands and the question· whether the
lands are agricultural or not is not very material.
;

Learned counsel for the respondent State distinguished the case
of Naveen Grab Nirrnan Samiti on a different footing as they claimed
to be the tral)sferees from Jai Marwar Company Private Limited and ~
F this transfer 'was at a time when the transfer was prohibited and that
question has not been gone into by the High Court as these petitioners
have chosen to come to this Court when in fact they were not parties in
the judgment before the High Court. Learned counsel for the peti-
tioner in the petition by Naveen Grah Nirrnan Samiti in view of the
objections raised by learned counsel for the respondent State frankly
G conceded that this petition was not before the High Court and in view
of this he submitted that he "!ay be permitted to withdraw this
petition. +
Learned counsel for the respondent also raised an objection
about the transfer of these lands in view of Section 3(2) of Rajasthan
H Urban Property (Restrictions of Transfers) Act, 1973. Section 3(2) of
SAHAKARI SAMITI v. STATE OF RAJAS111AN IOZA. J.] 859

this Act provided that after the 16th day of August, 1971 if any person A
has transferred any urban property owned by such person such transfer
shall be deemed to be a transfer made to defeat the provisions of this
Act and the property so transferred shall for the purposes of this Act
be deemed to be owned by such person. On this basis it was contended
that as the transfers have been effected by Maharaj Shri Gaj Singh
after 16th August, 1971 they will be void whereas learned counsel for B
the appellants contended that this Act was enacted in contemplation of
the Rajasthan Urban Property Celling Act which was to be enacted
and it was for the purpose of that Act that Sec. 3(2) of this Act was
enacted to restrict transfer of urban property but it did not declare
transfer to be void but said that inspite of the transfer the property will
be deemed to be owned by such person i.e. transferor. The idea was C
that while applying the law of ceiling the holder of the property may
+ not defeat the provisions of that Act by these transfers and ultimately
this Act was repealed and the repeal was by Rajasthan Urban Property
(Restrictions of Transfers) Repeal Act, 1978 and that Act did not
protect anyone of these provisions. In fact this question was raised
before the Division Bench and the learned Judges of the Division D
Bench in the impugned judgment observed:
"In view of the repeal of 1973 Act the cloud which has been
cast on the title of the petitioners in the writ petitions giving
rise to these appeals by section 3(2) of the 1973 Act, was
removed, and, therefore, we are unable to accept the con- E
tention of the learned Government Advocate"."
It is apparent that this Section prohibiting transfers was enacted keep-
ing in view the Act on ceiling in contemplation and that is why as
+- I
indicated earlier Section 3(2) did not provide that the transfer will be
invalid but it only provided that inspite of the transfer the property will
1 be deemed to be owned by such person thereby meaning the transferor F
' so that when the ceiling Act is brought into force the transferor may
not take advantage of the transfer to defeat the provisions of the
Ceiling Act. In fact after the Ceiling Act was brought into force a
prohibition was again imposed on the transfer and admittedly the
transfers with which we are concerned are not after that as it is .clear
that the Ra jasthan Urban Property Ceiling Act, 1972 when -vas G
enacted provided by Section 5 of that Act that the transfers which were
made after the commencement of the Act was declared null and void.
In fact the learned Judges of the Division Bench considered this aspect
of the matter and negatived the contention advanced by the learned
counsel'for the respondents in the words indicated above and in our
opinion that conclusion could not be assailed. H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

As regards the question as to whether the lands in dispute i.e
A
which fall within Khasra Nos. 421 and 426 fall within the purview of
the definition of 'land' a:s· contained in Section 2F of the Act is con-
cerned it is consistently held by the High Court that as the land fell
within the exception of Section 2F it would not fall within the defini-
tion of 'land (Section 2(f) reads:
B
"land" means and land held or let for purposes of agri-
culture or for purposes ancilliary thereto including waste
land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and
other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricul..
tural labourers and village artisans and includes-
c (a) tanks, lakes, ponds, river and water channels held for
purposes of irrigation.
+
(b) surface of hills,

D (c) landing grounds or strips, and

( d) shikargah

but does not include forts, palace buildings and building
plots, specified in the inventory."
E
The last part of this provisions "but does not include forts, palace

F
buildings, building plots specified in the inventory" is the relevant
portion of the definition which was considered by the Court below and
is the question which de:serves to be considered. The Inventory has
also been defined in Section 2(d) which means inventory of the private
property of the ruler prepared in pursuance of Article 12 of the Con-
1
venant and finally approved by the Government of India.

In the High Court in all these petitions the plea raised was that
the inventory of the private property of the ex-ruler of the Jodhpur
State Maharaj Shri Gaj Singh contained an item of property shown as
G Umaid Bhawan Place and the boundaries therein were indicated to be
in red in the site plan attached alongwith it. So far as the inventory and +
inclusion of this property in the .inventory of the private property is
· concerned it is not disputed even before us. In the High Court the site
plan and the properties included in the red boundary forming part of
the property Umaid Bhawan Palace was also not disputed. All the
H judgments in the High Court are based on this admission and appa-
SAHAKARI SAMIT! v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN !OZA, J.] 861

rently the affidavits filed on behalf of the State before the High Court
A
clearly and categorically admitted this position and even went to the
extent of saying that this was verified and found to be correct and the
plan filed with the petition having a red boundary was admitted and
therefore it was not disputed that Khasra Nos. 421 and 426 fell within
the boundary of Umaid Bhawan Palace which in accordance with the
definitiop. of 'land' quoted above will be excluded from the definition B
and what is excluded from the definition of 'land' in Section 2F could
not vest in the State in view of language of Section 7. Section 7 reads:

Acquisition of estates-(1) As soon as may be after the
commencement of this Act, the Government may for the
purpose of carrying out agrarian reform in accordance with
the provisions of this Act, by notification in the Official c
Gazette, appoint a date for the acquisition of landowners'
estates in the State and for their vesting in the State
Government.

(2) The date appointed under this Section in relation to the D
acquisition of landowners' estates in the State in this Act
referred to as the date of vesting of such estates."

"" This talks of the vesting of the estate and the estate itself has been
defined in Sec. 2B which reads:
E
"estate" means land or right, title or interest in land held
) by a landowner;"

.~ This clearly talks of land or right, title or interest in land held by
I landowner and land as already discussed above is defined in Section 2F
f it is therefore clear that if this property did not fall within the ambit of F
the definition of land it could not be said to be estate under Section 2B
and therefore could not vest in the State under Section 7.

It was in this view that counsel for both the parties frankly
conceded that if this falls within the exception to the definition of
'land' provided in Section 2F the further question about the land being G
+ agricultural or not is of no consequence.

An attempt was made by the learned counsel during the course
of arguments to suggest that it is no doubt true that all through the
State Govenment and on behalf of the State Government the affidavits
that were filed in the High Court this was admitted that these lands in · H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

dispute fell within the red boundary of the site plan and the site plan is
A
the site plan of the Umaid Bhawan Palace which is included in the
inventory of the private property of the ruler finally approved by the
Government of India. It is also not seriously disputed that there are
orders passed by some revenue officers in respect of these matters
where it has been held that these lands fell within the red boundary
B which is the correct boundary of Umaii! Bhawan Palace in the inven-
tory approved by the Government of India as the private properties of
the ex-ruler. Only an attempt was made by Additional Solicitor
General who appeared for the State to suggest that the Central
Government alone may have the original and therefore wanted this
Court to summon the original but learned counsel had no explanation
why this could not be done in all these years to which he had no answer
c and therefore it is plain that so far as these facts are concerned the
State could not now be permitted to raise any objection in respect of +
the site plan and the boundary in red of Umaid Bhawan Palace.

After the hearing was concluded an attempt has been made on
D behalf of the State and certain papers have been filed which pertains to
some returns filed in r.onnection with the assessment in respect of the
building Umaid Bhawan Palace which has been described as Hotel
Marudhar and on that basis probably a suggestion is made that in this
the ex-ruler has submitted a plan for assessment of the property tax >r'
wherein he has not showed this part of the property which is the
E subject matter of the dispute. Apparently these papers pertain to some
proceedings of assessment of property pertaining to Marudhar Hotel
with which we are not concerned and on that basis it could not be said
that what has been admitted all through as the boundary of the Umaid
Bhawan Palace is not correct. No reliance could be placed on these
additional papers.
i.t
F
Before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1924/75 Additional
Collectpr Jodhpur who is also described as the Officer Incharge of the
case has filed a counter in return and in this it is stated:

That the Photostat copy and the true copy of the Covenant
G and the site plan submitted by the petitioner alongwith the
aforesaid application have been got verified to be the true ~
and exact copies of the original covenant and the plan
attached with the inventory of the private properties of the
Ex-ruler of Jodhpur. The duly verified copy of the plan is
being submitted for your perusal."
H
SAHAKARI SAMIT! v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [OZA, J.] 863

and the same reply filed by the said Additional Collector has been
verified on affidavit by the same officer who in his affidavit states: A

"That the photostat copy of the convenant as also the true
copy of the plan referred in the Schedule of the inventory
oftiie private properties of Ex-ruler. Ex-ruler Jodhpursup-
plied to the respondents have been got verified from the B
Chief Engineer P.W.D. B & R Rajasthan, Jaipur and the
office of the General Administration Department, Rajas-
than, Secretariat, Jaipur."

In view of these circumstances therefore so far as the land in dispute
i.e. Khasra Nos. 421 and 426 is concerned the admission made by the
State and which was also clear from various documents which have c
been considered by the High Court in their judgments in these peti-
tions clearly show that these lands were within the boundaries of the
Umaid Bhawan Palace which is the private property in accordance
with the inventory preparted and approved by Government of India
and therefore which will not fall within the ambit of the definition of D
the 'land' as defined in Section 2F and thus will not fall within the
ambit of the 'estate' which could vest under the provisions of this
Section and in this view of the matter even withoui going into the the
question about whether land being agricultural or not the view taken
by Justice M.L. Jain is the only view which could be sustained.
E
Even as regards the question as to whether this land is agri-
cultural or not it will be relevant to note. Learned counsel for the State
has relied on some Khasra, Girdwari and Jamabandi of Samvat 2030',to
2032 relating to Khasra No. 421. It is described as Padat and it is
contended that this land will be agricultural land as it also includes
waste land. Even on the basis of the record on which reliance is placed F
by the learned counsel for the State that no lana revenue is assessed on
this land. On the contrary counsel for the appellant referred to a
notification published in the Jodhpur Government Gazette dated
February 10, 1934 and this notification states that the Development
Department shall have control over the disposal of land for building
sites and the building regulation shall operate over the area within a G
radius of three miles from the Sojati Gate and it is not disputed that
these lands fell within three miles' radius from Sojati Gate. Learned
counsel also referred to a letter written to Urban Improvement Trust.
The Settlement Officer is alleged to have stated that the plan was
carefully perused, checked and tallied with the corresponding old set-
tlement record of Samvat 1979 together with the site plan of Umaid H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A Bhawan Palace which indicates the private property of His Highness
the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur Jodhpur duly verified on 12.11.1958 by
the then Deputy Secretary, G .A.D. and the Commissioner, Jodhpur
Division, Jodhpur wherein the said land is included in the premises of
Umaid Bhawan Palace. The Settlement Officer further added that the
fact that this land had never been assessed to rents, that it never has
B been cultivated and that it is included within the Umaid Bhawan
Palace is sufficient to show that it is "abadi land" within the meaning
and definition under Section 158 of the Ra jasthan Land Revenue Act,
1956. The view expressed by the Government that this land does not
appear to be agricultural land is fully established and it was on the
basis of these documents that the learned Judge Shri M.L. Jain came
to the conclusion that:
c
"The documents clearly demonstrate that the land in dis-
pute is not an agricultural and rather it forms part of the
Abadi land. In the revenue records, Khasra Nos. are allot-
ted not only to agricultural plot but they are also allotted to
D Ban jar land and to Abadi land as well. The copies of the
Jamabandi and Girdwari filed by the State shows that the
land js Padat and does not carry any land revenue. It is,
therefore, clear that the land in question being an Abadi
land is not covered by the provisions of the Act."
It is clear that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
E respondent that this land is an agricultural land also cannot be accep-
ted and in view of our conclusions reached above it is clear that the
view taken by learned Judge Shir M.L. Jain is the only view which
could be taken. Consequently the appeals filed by the appellants
including Prajapati Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. are allowed. The judgment passed by the Division
F Bench of High Court of Rajasthan in the appeals is set aside and it is
held that no action under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Refonns
\ \
and Acquisition of Landowners' Estate Act, 1963 could be taken
against the appellants and all notices or actions taken are hereby
quashed. The appellants shall be entitled to costs of these appeals.
Costs quantified at Rs.10,000.
G
So far as Civil Appeal No. 1145/87 Naveen Grah Nirman Sahkari ~
Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan is concerned we see no reason not to
permit him to withdraw. The petition and appeal is tberefore permit-
ted to be withdrawn.
H N.V.K. Appeals allowed.