2004 (4) TMI 589 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether 563 articles lying in Toshakhana (Treasury of the State of Jammu & Kashmir) can be declared as the private property of the appellant or this issue deserves fresh determination by Government of India or it be referred to arbitration for adjudication?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of Article 363 of the Constitution of India to the maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Whether the appellant is disentitled to relief on applicability of the doctrine of estoppel, abandonment, and waiver.
3. Whether the decision of the Government of India rejecting the representation deserves to be quashed and declaration granted that the articles are private property of the appellant or the issue either deserves to be remitted to the Government of India for reconsideration or referred for adjudication to an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Article 363 of the Constitution of India:
The respondents contended that the issue of whether the articles are private or State property arises out of the document of accession entered into by Maharaja Hari Singh with the Government of the Dominion of India, thus barring court jurisdiction under Article 363 of the Constitution. Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of courts in disputes arising out of treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements, or sanads executed before the Constitution's commencement by any Ruler of an Indian State. The Court noted that if the correspondence between Maharaja Hari Singh and the Government of India covered the articles in question, then Article 363 would indeed bar the jurisdiction. However, if the articles were not covered by the said correspondence, Article 363 would not apply. The Court concluded that the correspondence exchanged between Maharaja Hari Singh and the Government of India amounted to an 'agreement' within the meaning of Article 363, thus barring the jurisdiction of the courts.

2. Applicability of Doctrine of Estoppel, Waiver, or Abandonment:
The Division Bench held that there was either relinquishment of right or waiver voluntarily. The Court referred to various precedents to elucidate the principles of estoppel, abandonment, and waiver. The leading case of Pickard v. Sears established that where one by words or conduct causes another to believe in a certain state of things and induces them to act on that belief, the former is estopped from averring a different state of things. The Court also cited cases like Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore and Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal, which reiterated that for estoppel to apply, there must be a representation, reliance, and detriment. The Court found that Maharaja Hari Singh did not claim the articles as private property during his lifetime, and the appellant did not assert his right for over twenty years after Maharaja Hari Singh's death. Additionally, the appellant had taken items on temporary loan from Toshakhana, indicating acknowledgment of the State's possession. The Court concluded that the appellant had waived and/or abandoned his right in respect of the articles in question.

3. Decision of the Government of India Rejecting the Representation:
The Government of India rejected the appellant's representation on 24th September 1984, noting that Maharaja Hari Singh did not list the jewellery or regalia as private property in his correspondence. The Government also pointed out that the appellant had not sought recognition of the jewellery as heirlooms for wealth tax exemption. The Court observed that there had never been any declaration that the articles in question were private properties of Maharaja Hari Singh or the appellant. The Court noted that the issues involved various disputed facts that required evidence, which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The Court found no illegality in the Government's decision and saw no grounds to quash the order or refer the matter to arbitration. The Court emphasized that the decision regarding private property taken long ago could not be reopened without exceptional grounds, which were absent in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment, and concluded that no interference was warranted. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.