In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the daughter of the late Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh, the last reigning Maharaja of Bikaner, seeking arrears of rent from the Central Government for the Bikaner House property located in the national capital. Justice Sachin Datta presided over the case and concluded that the petitioner failed to establish any legal entitlement to the property or the claimed rent arrears.
The origins of this dispute trace back to the period following India's independence when princely states were integrated into the Indian Union. Bikaner House, originally the residence of the Bikaner royal family in Delhi, was leased by the Central Government in 1950. The lease agreement stipulated that 67% of the rent would be paid to the Government of Rajasthan, while the remaining 33% was allocated to Maharaja Karni Singh. This arrangement was formalized in 1951, with the Government of India communicating that one-third of the rent from the property would be released to the Maharaja's estate. Payments were made regularly until 1986 to the Government of Rajasthan and continued until 1991 to Maharaja Karni Singh.
Upon the Maharaja's death in 1991, his daughter, the petitioner, requested that the rent be distributed in four equal installments among the legal heirs. However, she contended that following this representation, the Central Government ceased payments to her. The situation was further complicated in 2014 when the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to vacate Bikaner House after a suit was filed by the Government of Rajasthan. Subsequently, the property was handed over to Rajasthan government officials. Despite the vacation of the premises, the petitioner claimed that arrears of rent from October 1991 to December 2014 remained unpaid and that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) had not been issued by the Rajasthan Government.
In her plea, the petitioner sought a directive for the Central Government to release the outstanding arrears of rent for the specified period and to refrain from insisting upon an NOC from the Rajasthan Government for this purpose. However, the court found that the petitioner's claim was primarily based on a 1951 letter indicating that the Central Government had agreed to grant one-third of the rent to her father on an "ex gratia" basis. The term "ex gratia" refers to payments made out of goodwill or moral obligation, rather than because of any legal requirement.
Justice Datta emphasized that ex gratia payments do not constitute a legal obligation. The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a legal right over Bikaner House or any enforceable claim to the alleged arrears of rent. Furthermore, the court observed that the Government of Rajasthan holds full and absolute rights over Bikaner House, reinforcing the petitioner's lack of legal standing in the matter.
This judgment underscores the distinction between ex gratia payments and legally enforceable rights. It highlights that claims based solely on moral or goodwill considerations, without a foundation in legal entitlement, are unlikely to be upheld in a court of law. The decision also reaffirms the ownership rights of state governments over properties like Bikaner House, especially when historical agreements and subsequent legal developments have clearly established such ownership.
The dismissal of this petition brings clarity to the status of Bikaner House and the obligations, or lack thereof, of the Central Government concerning rent payments to the heirs of erstwhile royal families. It serves as a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing the necessity of concrete legal rights when making claims related to historical properties and arrangements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.