Another twist in Raja tale

LUCKNOW: Tenants of Raja Mahmudabad’s properties have reacted with caution to the news of the amended enemy property bill being rejected by the standing committee of parliament. Their contention is: “We are tenants and will keep paying the due rent, no matter under whose custody the property is – the Raja or the district administration.”
Meanwhile, it seems to be long haul for the Raja of Mahmudabad seeking restoration of property which the government had classifi ed as enemy property and vested it with the custodian.After the standing committee rejecting the proposed enemy property bill – claiming it to be heavily in favour the Raja – strong demands have been raised for putting forth the original bill that essentially comprised all the elements of July 2, 2010 ordinance that barred intervention of courts in deciding the ownership of enemy property.
The ordinance had come as a big blow to Raja Mehmudabad in whose favour the Supreme Court had ruled and asked the government to give him back all the properties, estimated to be worth thousands of crores. In its report submitted to the Vice-President and Rajya Sabha chairman Hamid Ansari, the standing committee headed by BJP leader Venkiah Naidu on Thursday maintained that the properties worth thousands of crores cannot be handed over to persons who have no legal right over it.
The report categorically sought to know as to why the previous bill was amended.
Well-placed sources said that a section of 31-member joint parliamentary committee have also demanded bringing back the original bill. ``The modifi ed bill was completely in favour of Raja as it came with a rider that court intervention before July 2, 2010, when the ordinance was promulgated, would not be affected. It was only the Raja who had moved the court prior to July 2, 2010,’’ said lawyer for tenants of enemy property, Prashant Chandra.
``Even we will demand that the original bill be put forth in parliament,’’ Chandra told TOI. While Raja Mahmudabad was unavailable for comments, sources said that the committee took into account observation of lawyer Ram Jethmalani who said that there was nothing wrong in handing over the property to an heir. Clearly, the Naidu committee didn’t act on Jethmalani’s suggestions. Meanwhile, the Raja’s properties in Lucknow are under the custody of district administration since August 2010 when the custodian of enemy property ordered the implementation of the ordinance that barred court’s intervention. In Lucknow, the Raja’s propeties are Lari Manzil in Hazratganj; Rang Mahal Butler Palace, Mohhammad Siddique building, Rakabganj; Lal Kothi, Maulviganj; Halwasiya market, and Mehmoodabad Mansion in Hazratganj. Similarly, there are a large number of properties in Sitapur and Mahmudabad as well.
The occupants of Raja’s properties further claim of being protected by the UP Rent Control Act of 1971 and the Tenancy Act where in an owner would be required to prove that he/she indeed requires that property. Sandip Kohli, a tenant of an enemy property in Hazratganj, said that whoever owns the property is immaterial. ``We have been tenant and continue to be so. Whether it the Raja or the custodian we will pay the due rent,’’ he said. Kohli, however, said that it is not all correct to favour one single individual while negating interests of hundreds or other people.