The High Court of Delhi rejects the plea by Maharaja's heirs for arrest rentals on the Bikaner House

The High Court of Delhi rejected a petition filed by the daughter of Bikaner’s last maharaja daughter, Dr. Karni Singh, supporting a remarkable rent for over 23 years from the Union Government for the iconic occupation of Bikaner House.

Following the discussion between the center and the respective leaders, Bikaner House was classified as “state property” and was taken into account by the Center of the Rajasthan Government and Dr. Karni Singh in March 1950 (PTI)

The heir, Rajyashree Kumari Bikaner, has been looking for rent from October 1991 to December 2014.

Taking note of a communication issued by the center to Maharaja in October 1951, in which the first, at the same time recognizing that the Bikaner House belonged to the Rajasthan government, agreed to pay the third rent at the late Maharaja, based on the ex-land. However, given the voluntary nature of these payments, Judge Sachin Datta considered that the Maharaja heirs were able to demonstrate legal rights over the alleged tax and could not claim them right.

The heirs, said the Datta justice, failed to establish the legal right over the property. He believed that the Bikaner House belonged to the Rajasthan government and had full and absolute rights over the property.

“The petitioner failed to establish any legal rights over the property in question, nor did he demonstrate any legal rights regarding any alleged” rent arrears “from defendant no.1. (Center). It is an undeniable fact that the property in question is a state property (Rajasthan). It is well established in the right that the ex gratia payments are discretion and are not enforceable as a legal law. Such payments are made voluntarily by the paying party and cannot be claimed as a law, “said the judge.

„Defendant no. 1, in fact, provided the late Dr. Karni Singh one third of the rent while he was alive, and this was done only on an exo0Graction. After Dr. Karni Singh’s death, his heirs cannot request these payments as a matter of legal law, ”said Datta Justice.

Following the discussion between the center and the respective leaders, Bikaner House was classified as “state property” and was taken in the lease by the Center of the Rajasthan Government and Dr. Karni Singh in March 1950. The lease was not formalized by a written rental contract, but an arrangement was concluded between the Center, Constituted the Center, Rajasthan Government and Dr. Karni Singh, according to the Center constituted the Center, Rajasthan Government and Dr. Karni Singh, according to the Center constituted the Center, Rajasthan the government and Dr. Karni Singh, given that the center was to pay monthly renting. ₹3.742.

According to the agreement, 67% of the rent had to be paid to the Rajasthan government, while 33% had to be allocated maharaja. Payments were made regularly to Rajasthan Government until 1986 and the late Maharaja Karni Singh until 1991.

Maharaja, before his death, in September 1988, performed a will in 1986, designating the property of Bikaner House as part of his “residual estate”. However, the property was vacated by the center in December 2014, following the Supreme Court’s order, adopted in a process filed by the Rajasthan government requesting the ownership of Bikaner.

In his petition, argued by Sriharsha Peechara’s lawyer, Kumari said that the center failed to keep his commitment in an October 1951 letter. He said that, after her father’s disappearance, in November 1991, asked the center to release the rent in four equal rates for the legacy,

The Rajasthan government claimed that the petition was extremely late and suffered from gross delay in 2014, despite the cause of action that appeared in 2022 and was the only and exclusive owner of the Bikaner House.

To be sure, the court rejected the petition, days after another January bank rejected a plea submitted by Nokha Municipal Corporation, which challenged the order of an arbitral court of January 2020, to guide him to pay ₹50.3 Lakh, to a private company, which subsequently led to the attachment of the Bikaner house, in the execution procedures. On January 7, the City Court extended its stay to the attachment of the Bikaner house, after mentioning that the corporation submitted some of the arbitration.