DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Have new documents proving state ownership of Dholpur Palace: Cong

NEW DELHI: Troubles for Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje mounted on Tuesday with the opposition Congress making another set of accusations on her alleged role in converting a state property into a private one The BJP rubbished the charge
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Jairam Ramesh (from our photo files)
Advertisement

Aditi Tandon

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, June 30

Advertisement

Troubles for Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje mounted on Tuesday, with the opposition Congress making another set of accusations on her alleged role in converting a state property into a private one. The BJP rubbished the charge.

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh brought out four new documents — among them the 1949 original instrument of accession of Dholpur Palace to the Indian state — to claim that the property belonged to the state but was later usurped by Raje's family and tainted former IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi.

Advertisement

Countering claims that the Palace was given to Raje's son Dushyant as part of an agreement between the latter and his estranged father Hemant Singh, made by the made by Rajasthan’s BJP leaders on Monday, the Congress leader presented another document to show that the agreement pertained only to movable assets of Dholpur Palace, not immovable.

On BJP's claims that there was proof to show that the Palace was transferred from state to Raje's family in 1957, Ramesh said: “Let such documents be made public first”.
Ramesh referred to the 1949 instrument of accession as the principal document of Dholpur palace ownership, saying subsequent documents were invalid.

The 1949 document shows the Palace as state property that could be used, on payment of maintenance charges, by then king Uday Bhan Singh during his lifetime.

The second document that shows the agreement between Dushyant and his father is an order by Additional District Judge Bharatpur issued on May 11, 2007. The order says the agreement in restricted to movable assets of Dholpur Palace.

"This evidence is smoking gun. The PM must end his silence now or we will assume that his self declared image of morality is mere farce," Ramesh said seeking Raje's resignation.

The Congress has presented documents that prove how Raje and her family converted the ownership of Dholpur Palace into private to then let Lalit Modi owned Niyant Heritage Hotels to run the place like a high end luxury hotel.

Rajasthan BJP refutes charges 

In Jaipur, Rajasthan BJP president Ashok Parnami showed documents, saying a court document of November 22, 1958, clearly proved that the Dholpur Palace was handed over to Dushyant Singh, son of Raje.

The press meet saw heated exchanges between the media and the BJP leaders with one news channel correspondent repeatedly pressing Parnami to respond to questions from his boss over telephone.

Asked by reporters to give copies of the documents he was flagging, Parnami said they could file an RTI and verify the documents presented by them and the Congress.

Parnami accused Ramesh of trying to create "confusion" over the Dholpur Palace issue.

The state BJP president said following the court direction and the compromise Dushyant reached with Hemant Singh, his father and estranged husband of Raje, "physical possession" of the Dholpur Palace was taken by Dushyant. 

Parnami contended that in at least five places in the court document, it has been clearly specified that Dushyant had the “ownership rights of Dholpur Palace and had the full rights” to sell or lease out the movable and immovable properties in question.

Rejecting Ramesh's claims, Parnami who fielded questions along with Rajasthan Health Minister Rajendra Rathore, said, “Dushyant got all legal rights even to sell, mortgage, or give on lease of the said property (Dholpur Palace) which is not disputed anywhere.”

Hitting back at Ramesh’s claim, Parnami on the second consecutive day displayed before reporters documents which, he said, clearly proved that Hemant Singh had handed over the custody of the palace to Dushyant and he (Dushyant) is legal heir as dependent. He said court documents were there to substantiate this. However, Parnami refused to circulate copy of the documents to the press.

Lashing out at the Congress, Parnami said for the last ten days it has been trying to damage Raje's image through "false and unwanted propaganda".

“Without knowing the facts, Jairam Ramesh made baseless allegations against Chief Minister Raje and her family on the Dholpur Palace that belongs to her son Dushyant Singh... It is all the Congress trying to play ‘auchi rajniti’ (cheap politics)," he said.

Parnami said, "We have got all evidences and legal papers that proves Dushyant Singh, son of Mrs Raje, has ownership rights on Dholpur palace".

"It was Government of India's General Administration department's notification of December 1956, and later Union Home Department orders that Maharaja Rana Hemant Singh (father of Dushyant Singh) was declared legal heir of the palace", Parnami said.

Later, in 2007, a Fast Track Court in Bharatpur had made a settlement of Dholpur Palace in favour of Dushyant Singh and Hemant Singh and issued the decree, and this decree was registered too, Parnami said.

Parnami said, “As per Nagar Palika (Municipal Council) of Bharatpur's record, Dushyant Singh's name is mentioned there in legal papers".

Moreover, the City Palace Dholpur was paid a cash compensation of over Rs 1.97 crire (Rs.1,97,21,720.50) by the NHAI in 2010 on acquiring a land when there was Congress government in Rajasthan, Parnami said, adding if the NHAI paid the compensation to Dushyant, then who had the legal rights on the palace. “Ramesh should know it.”

On Ramesh's charge that Dholpur palace was on “Gair Mumkin Abadi” (non-agriculture) area, Rathore said, “Actually, half of Jaipur has been built on such area. That does not mean that the palace was located on illegal land,” Rathore added.  — (With PTI inputs)

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Classifieds tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper