HC refuses compensation for gaucher land

Ahmedabad: Gujarat high court has declined a demand for compensation made by a royal family of a princely state, which had to give up acres of land from each of the villages in the state for the purpose of grazing after independence.
    More than 60 years after the handing over of the land to the government of Bombay by the Prempur state in the Sabarkantha district, six sons of the then ruler Amarsinh Zala have been seeking compensation for the gaucher land given by the ruler for public benefit.
    After independence, ex-ruler of Prempur Zala had signed the merger agreement with the government of Bombay and all properties, which were being used for public benefits, were vested to the Bombay government.
    Following this annexation, Himmatnagar mamlatdar had ordered the reservation of five per cent of total land in each village of Prempur state towards public utility. Accordingly, 40 acre land per 100 cattle was also earmarked and reserved in each village as gaucher land and later used for public purpose.
    In 1987, Zala’s sons approached the revenue authority asking for compensation and they cited the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act of 1953, in which there was a provision of reward in case of acquisition of property from erstwhile rulers. Their demand was rejected, and the Revenue Tribunal also confirmed the decision of the authority.
    The failure before these two forums brought the ruler’s descendents before the high court in 2008. A bench of justices Jayant Patel and SR Brahmbhatt refused to accept the petitioners’ contentions and observed that the land was already earmarked for public purpose and ceased to be the ruler’s personal property.
    “Therefore, when the state of Bombay has taken over the then state of Prempur, the said property, meant for common purpose and common use for the benefit of the public, has vested to another state, the petitioner cannot claim the individual right as if a citizen holding any individual property or personal property of himself,” the court observed while refusing compensation to petitioners, who came forward to claim right on the property decades after the annexation.