Karan Singh

New Delhi, April 13: The Supreme Court today turned down an appeal by the descendant of the erstwhile Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, that 563 articles of the royal family, in the state government’s custody now, be declared his private property.

Settling a long-drawn legal battle, a division bench of Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and A.R. Lakshmanan said “it is not possible to quash the order” of the government declaring the antique jewellery items its property.

It is said the 563 articles — of jewellery, heirlooms, apparel, gold and silver utensils and cutlery, furniture, fixtures and carpets — now in the toshakhana (treasury) of Jammu and Kashmir are priceless, and if they were sold, diamond prices might fall worldwide.

Responding to the plea of Hari Singh’s son Karan Singh for a direction quashing a government order refusing to hand him the articles, the bench said “there has never been any declaration that the articles are private properties of the appellant or his father”.

It upheld an order of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which did not recognise Karan Singh’s claim. The Union government, too, has not recognised his claim for 30 years.

The 563 items were transferred to the government treasury in Srinagar on September 17, 1951. In 1983, Karan Singh wrote to the Union home minister, claiming the items. A year later, he approached the high court, seeking a direction to the Centre to hand over the private properties.

On September 24, 1984, the Centre rejected Karan Singh’s claim, pointing out that Hari Singh had enlisted his private properties in a letter to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, but did not mention the 563 items. It added that in his book, Heir Apparent, Karan Singh had said the treasure lying in the toshakhana had been given to the state.

The Supreme Court observed that Karan Singh had “abandoned or waived” his right to the articles. “It is evident that the appellant came out of slumber only in the year 1983 and took a chance in respect of the articles in question.... The appellant failed to assert his right at proper opportunity,” the bench ruled.