Diya Kumari with mother Padmini Devi. The row involves land in what used to be ‘Hathroi village’ in official records
JAIPUR: Supreme Court has reopened proceedings in a Rs 400-crore land dispute between Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and the family of former royal and deputy CM Diya Kumari, setting aside a Rajasthan high court order that allowed a 2011 trial court decree in favour of the princely estate to “stand without examination on merit”. The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan held that there was no justification in the high court declining to consider JDA’s appeal on technical grounds. The judges directed the HC bench to decide JDA’s first appeal on merit within four weeks and submit a compliance report. The dispute involves land in what used to be “Hathroi village” in official records before becoming part of central Jaipur’s urban sprawl, including prime real estate, schools, hospitals and other civic infrastructure. JDA pegs the value of the land parcel, mentioned in revenue records as “Siwai chak” (uncultivable govt land), at Rs 400 crore. The petition says the civic administration took possession of the land in the 1990s, challenging the erstwhile royal family’s claim that it was registered as private property under the 1949 Covenant linked to Jaipur’s accession to the Indian Union. JDA insists the land was never listed as the former royal family’s private property in the covenant schedule, and that swathes of land were lawfully acquired between 1993 and 1995 after paying compensation. In 2005, the royal family filed a civil suit, seeking declaration of ownership. On Nov 24, 2011, the trial court decreed the suit in their favour, declaring them owners. The court set aside revenue entries in favour of the state and restrained JDA from interfering with possession. JDA filed its first appeal in 2012. It was dismissed in Nov 2023, before being restored just over a year later. On Sept 15 last year, HC declined to intervene in the dispute, leaving the trial court decree intact without appellate scrutiny. JDA approached Supreme Court on Dec 10, arguing that public land was lost on technical grounds despite issues involving public title, completed acquisitions, settled revenue records and a constitutional bar under Article 363.
