SC asks UP to pay rent due for more than 30 yrs | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 24, 2017-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

SC asks UP to pay rent due for more than 30 yrs

Renting out a 5.86 acre piece of land in Mathura to the Uttar Pradesh government has proved to be a costly affair for the Raja of Bharatpur. Bhadra Sinha reports.

delhi Updated: Jul 29, 2010 00:18 IST
Bhadra Sinha

Renting out a 5.86 acre piece of land in Mathura to the Uttar Pradesh government has proved to be a costly affair for the Raja of Bharatpur.

After the state government did not bother to pay the rent for 35 years, Raja Vishwendra Singh was forced to sell it off in 1992.

Last week, however, proved lucky for him.

After a protracted litigation, the Raja finally got his dues as Supreme Court directed the Mayawati government to pay more than Rs 6 crore to the Raja and the property's present owner within three months.

The court warned UP of serious consequences if it didn't pay within the next three months.

The directions and warning came in a contempt petition against the government.

The Raja sought action against the government, which declined to follow two SC orders of 2002 and 2004, directing it to pay Rs 1.41 lakh as monthly rent with retrospective effect.

The adamant government, however, did not pay.

This forced the Raja to again knock SC doors and initiate contempt against the state. The government defended its stand saying the Raja did not declare that it had sold the property and was not the original owner.

The court dismissed this contention and said the government had no say in a private agreement.

The Raja moved a Mathura court in 1989 after the UP government failed to give rent for the property since 1975. On loosing its case the state appealed before the high court that ordered the government to pay more than Rs 2.37 lakh as annual rent.

The Raja challenged the order before SC, which enhanced the rent to Rs 1.41 lakh per month in 2002.

The UP government's review petition seeking a change in the order was dismissed in 2004.