Jaipur royal family moves Supreme Court for repossession of Town Hall from State

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Rajasthan government’s response to a plea by members of the Jaipur royal family seeking return of the historic Town Hall property in Jaipur which is currently in the State government's possession but is lying unutilised [Rajmata Padmini Devi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.].The Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih issued notice on the appeal filed by the royal family challenging the High Court’s dismissal of their civil suit.Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the royal family, argued that the case raises “important constitutional questions” about the rights of former royals after the 26th Constitutional Amendment (abolition of privy purse) and whether the jurisdiction of courts can be ousted when a case involves covenants entered into before the Constitution came into force. In 1949, a covenant was signed between various rulers in Rajasthan to form the United State of Rajasthan.However, the covenant guaranteed private properties to rulers and their families. The Government of India and the then Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II identified certain properties as the private property of the ruler and his heirs – through letters collateral to the covenant. The Town Hall was one such property which was agreed to be used by the State government for official purposes as the fledgling State had no properties of such scale and Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II was to be made the Rajpramukh of the State (equivalent to the Governor).The property was used by the State from 1949 onwards after the formation of the United State of Rajasthan, and the Maharaja was made Rajpramukh. According to the petitioners, while the Town Hall was temporarily handed to the State for official use, its ownership was never transferred.After the State stopped using the property in 2001, the royal family made repeated representations for its return. According to the royal family, the building was neglected for years, fell into disrepair and was later earmarked by the State for commercial repurposing.In 2023, the petitioners filed a civil suit seeking possession, injunction and mesne profits. The State invoked Article 363 of the Constitution to seek dismissal of the suit on the ground that it could not be entertained by civil courts as it involved interpretation of a covenant.Article 363 bars judicial intervention in disputes arising out of pre-Constitutional covenants.The trial court rejected the State’s application under Order VII Rule 11, holding that the case was about civil property rights and not enforcement of a covenant. In April 2025, the Rajasthan High Court reversed this finding and dismissed the suit entirely, prompting the petitioners to move the top Court..According to the petitioners, barring them from civil courts when their property is no longer governed by special constitutional protections, violates Article 14 (equality) and Article 300A (right to property). They cited the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier decision in Jagat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority wherein it was held that Article 363 should not be used to stifle genuine civil disputes..Appearing for petitioners, Salve contended that the Town Hall is the private property of the Jaipur royal family and that their current rights are governed by ordinary civil law—not the now-dismantled framework of princely covenants..Salve submitted that Article 363 cannot be invoked in this case. He argued that it was introduced as part of a Constitutional package alongside Article 362, and that its independent survival as a complete bar is questionable post-abolition of privy purses by 26th Constitutional amendment.“There are three arguments on 363. One was in Raghunath Singh. Whether 363 really operates after deletion of 362. They were part of a package. Whether 363 can survive as a pure ouster clause is something that has to be considered,” Salve said..He further submitted that the covenant at issue was not even entered into by the Union of India but by the rulers of Rajasthan to create the United State of Rajasthan. The Government of India merely acted as a guarantor, and the property rights asserted by the petitioners predate the covenant entirely.The bench asked how the petitioners’ merger with the Indian Union was possible if the Union was not a party to the covenant. It also expressed concern that Salve’s argument could open the door to similar claims by other former princely families.“Then all rulers will start claiming in Rajasthan if your argument is accepted? Princely states will be free? Property of princely states will be their own property now?” the Court asked.Salve clarified that the right to file a suit did not automatically mean the right would succeed.“Filing a suit and having a right are two very different things,” he replied.He reiterated that the suit concerned only “private property” and raised no broader claims related to sovereignty, merger or accession.The Additional Advocate General for Rajasthan opposed any interim order at this stage and sought time to respond. The Court noted the State’s statement that it would not precipitate the matter during the pendency of the case.“Shri Salve, learned senior counsel, submits prayer for grant of interim relief. At this stage the AAG submits that the state may not precipitate the matter. The state shall respect pendency of the SLP. Post the matter after 8 weeks," the Court noted in its order. .The matter is now slated to be heard after 8 weeks.[Read Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.