IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. of 2020
IN
SLP (Civil) No. 12241 of 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE KHASGI (DEVI AHILYABAI HOLKAR
CHARITIES) TRUST INDORE & ANR. ..Petitioners
Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS ..Respondents

AND
IN THE MATTER OF :-
VIJAY SINGH PAL …Intervenor

IA NO………………… of 2020
AN APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION
With
IA NO………………… of 2020
AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

FOR INDEX
[KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
PAPERBOOK

ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENOR: RONAK KARANPURIA

 INDEX
S.No PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
.

1. An application for intervention

2. Annexure I-1

3. Annexure I-2

4. Annexure I-3

5. Annexure I-4

6. Annexure I-5

7. Annexure I-6

8. Annexure I-7

9. Annexure I-8

10. IA No……………… of 2020

An application for exemption from filing official
translation
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. of 2020
IN
SLP (Civil) No. 12241 of 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE KHASGI (DEVI AHILYABAI HOLKAR
CHARITIES) TRUST INDORE & ANR. ..Petitioners
Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS ..Respondents

VIJAY SINGH PAL S/O LATE SHRI K.S. PAL

AGE 63 YEARS, R/O PAL MANSION,
JAMUNA PALACE, HARIDWAR …Applicant/Intervenor

APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION

To,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS HON’BLE

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA

The Humble Application of the Applicant above-named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That, Intervener is resident of Haridwar, Uttarakhand and the state

president of the Holkar Community in Uttrakhand, appointed by
Akhil Bhartiya Holkar Mahasangh (Regd.), registered society,
whose registration no. is S/26740 date 28.09.1994, registered by
 Registrar Societies, Delhi. Copies of appointment letter dated
______ and certificate of registration of society dated _______ are
annexed here and marked as ANNEXURE I/1 (Page _____ to
____) and ANNEXURE I/2 (Page _____ to ____).

2. That, in the year 2012, Intervener got the information that, one
Anirudh Sikhola was making efforts in Nagar Nigam Haridwar, for
transferring his name in the revenue records in place of Khasgi
(Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charitable) Trust. The properties of Holkar
state in Uttarakhand, which was merged in state of Madhya Pradesh
after accession of Holkar state in Union of India, was managed by
the trust. After inquiry, the intervener got the information that trust
had sold four properties to Anirudh Sikhola through registered Sale
deeds, which was illegal as the properties are government properties,
so he made a complaint to the District Magistrate Haridwar, the then
administrator of the Nigam in 2012 for fraud committed by Trust in
disposing of the government properties, with the copies of the
complaint to Chief Ministers of Uttrakhand and Madhya Pradesh.

3. It is submitted that an enquiry was carried out by the learned

Commissioner Garhwal Uttrakhand. The enquiry report submitted to
the Govt of Uttrakhand by the learned Commissioner vide dt.
24.5.2012 identified the fraud committed by the trust in disposing
off the government properties. Learned commissioner recommended
for a CBI enquiry for the fraud committed by trust, as well as for the
probabilities of similar attempts by the trusties to sale the
government properties in different parts of country, also direction
was issued to District Magistrate, Haridwar, to initiate proceedings
 under Indian Registration Act, for rejection of four Sale deeds and
rejection of mutation proceedings before Nagar Nigam, Haridwar.

4. It is submitted that since the report of the commissioner was not

implemented, the Intervener filed a public interest litigation PIL
no.105/2012 before Hon’ble High court of Nainital, with request to
implement the commissioner’s report. The Madhya Pradesh
Government didn’t appear before High Court of Nainital despite of
proper summons issued to them. The Hon'ble High court dismissed
the PIL vide order dated 19.08.2013, with observation that, the State
of Madhya Pradesh seems to be not interested to protect the
property, allegedly belonging to it.

5. That, after rejection of PIL, present intervener filed SLP before

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was registered as
8950/2015. Before apex court state of Madhya Pradesh was
appeared. On 11 December 2017 Hon’ble apex court passed final
order, by which appeal filed by present intervener was allowed and
the matter remitted back to the High court of Nainital for
reconsideration. Copy of order passed by apex court in SLP (C) No.
8950 of 2015 dated _____ is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE I/3 (Page _____ to ____).

6. That, after remand of matter, it was again heard by Hon’ble High

Court of Nainital. This time State of Madhya Pradesh filed their
detailed reply, admitting the ownership of the properties with the
State with details of the proceeding pending under WA No. 92/2012
with the High Court of Indore. The reply of the state also enclosed
the detailed enquiry report of Principle Secretary of Madhya Pradesh
 Govt., highlighting the various frauds committed by the trust in
alienating the Govt. properties with various suggestions of remedial
actions. The state also admitted to the fact of alienation of the Govt.
properties at various other parts of the country apart from Haridwar.
Enquiry report filed by state of Madhya Pradesh before Nainital
High Court is not produced by State of M.P before this hon’ble
court, which shows the malafide intention of state of M.P. A true
and translated copy of the enquiry report of principle secretary, state
of M.P dated ____ is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE I/4 (Page _____ to ____).

7. That, the PIL was once again dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court
on the ground that proceeding regarding Khasgi trust are pending
before High Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at Indore, without
touching the core of the criminal part played by the trust in
alienating the said government properties. Copy of final order dated
24.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. ______is
annexed here and marked as ANNEXURE I/5 (Page _____ to
____)

8. That, the SLP was made by the intervener, in Hon'ble Supreme

Court against the order, The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed off the
SLP filed by the applicant vide their order dt. 13.11.2018 upholding
the reason of pendency of the proceedings. However, a liberty was
granted to the applicant to file an application in the present pending
proceedings at Indore High Court. The Fine of Rs.15000/- was made
easy. Copy of final order of passed by this court in SLP (C) No. ___
dated ____ is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE I/6
(Page _____ to ____).
9. That, this Hon’ble Court gave the liberty to intervener to take part in
the proceedings pending before this Hon’ble High Court of M.P.,
accordingly, the Intervener had filed an application before learned
High Court of M.P, Bench at Indore on the basis of liberty granted
by this Hon’ble Court in SLP No. 28181/2018 vide order dated
13/11/2018. Copy of order passed in SLP No. 28181/2018 dated
13/11/2018. is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE I/7
(Page _____ to ____)

10. That, contentions raised by Intervener before High Court was duly
considered and the documents produced by the Intervener were also
relied by the High Court in para 156 of the Judgement, So the
application of present Intervener before High Court is deemed to be
allowed, but petitioners before this Court has not impleaded present
Intervener as one of the respondent, so in order to disclose all the
material facts which are not produced by petitioners as well as
respondents, present Intervener is filling this application before this
Court.

11. That, the report and its annexures which was filed and considered by
the High Court in its Judgement in paragraph 156 of the judgement
were not made part of the record before this Hon’ble Court.

12. That, the State of M.P filed two writ appeals before High Court
Indore bench, WA 135/2014 being aggrieved by the order dated
03.12.2013 passed in WP 5372/2010 and other WA 92/2014 being
aggrieved by order dated 28/11/2013 in WP 11618/2012 passed by
Single Bench, wherein the petition filed by the respondents have
 been disposed off by issuing certain directions in Writ Petition
No.5372/2010 and further directions to revenue authorities to correct
the revenue records in WP 11618/2012.

13. That, it was categorically stated in order passed by single bench

(page no. 331-332 of Annexure P/24 in SLP 12224/2020), that for
making permanent arrangement for administration of Khasgi
Endowments, Court directs for Parliamentary Legislation/State
Legislation. In the meantime unless an act is enacted, Court directs
certain directions, which shows that order of Single Bench is a
temporary measure, but this aspect is overlooked by Division Bench
of High Court, no direction has been given to Central or State
Government for passing legislation. State of Madhya Pradesh is
silent on this aspect though it was also present in the settlement
dated 06/05/1949 arose from Covenant (Annexure-P3, page no.
162-163 in SLP (C) 12224/2020), by which Khasgi properties and
income from it, lapsed for all time to the Madhya Bharat
Government, now State of Madhya Pradesh.

14. That, during & after independence, the last king of Holker state,
Indore, Srimant Yashwant Rao Holker II, along with other 18 states
entered into a covenant in April, August, November 1948 with
government of India, for the formation of Madhya Bharat. Through
this covenant, properties of rulers were lapsed for all time into the
proposed Madhya Bharat government, except certain private
properties listed in the covenant. The true copy of covenant is
already on record as filed by Appellant as Annexure - P1 (page
141-159).
15. That, the private properties as per the list given in the covenant were
given to the king for their personal use, along with the annual
pension specified therein. No property mentioned in the Schedule to
the Khasgi Devi Ahilyabai Holker (Charities) Trust, Indore 1962,
comprise the private properties as per the list of the private
properties submitted by the Holker state to the Govt of India in
terms of Article XII of the covenant. The true copy of list of private
property is already on record as filed by petitioner as Annexure –
P5 (page 166-175).

16. That, Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar made claim on the Khasgi
properties before government of India, it was settled by the
government as per article XII clause (3) of the covenant on 06 May
1949 that the Khasgi properties and the income from it shall be
treated as lapsed for all time to the Madhya Bharat government.
Copy of settlement is already on record, as filed by petitioner
Annexure-P3.

17. That, as per the settlement finalized by the Secretary, Govt of India
Shri V P Menon, Ministry of States, an annuity of Rs.2,91,952/- was
set aside by the Madhya Bharat Govt from its revenue for fulfilling
object of the Trust that is maintenance, upkeep & preservation of
charities & religious endowments.

18. That, the properties mentioned in the trust deed of Khasgi (Devi
Ahilyabai Holker Charities) Trust, Indore, (Annexure-P10, page no.
182) constituted on 27.6.1962 are the state properties lapse for all
time into Madhya Bharat Government as per settlement finalized on
06 May 1949.
19. That, the trusties of Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holker Charities) Trust,
Indore created a supplementary deed on 08/02/1972 specifying the
need for alienating the said properties of Madhya Bharat Govt. for
administration of Trust (true copy of which is on record filed by
Appellant as Annexure-P16, page no. 203). This act of the trusties
was a gross fraud, committed with bad intentions to alienate the
Government properties against the provisions of the covenant and
the trust deed of the Khasgi Devi Ahilyabai Holker Charities Trust,
Indore of 1962. Nowhere in the original trust deed, any provisions
regarding the alienation of the properties by means of sell or lease
was incorporated. Moreover, the supplementary deed date
08.03.1972 itself not valid in the eyes of law as the same in
contravention to the covenant and settlemt entered between holkar
and State of Madhya Bharat.

20. It is submitted that the recitals of the trust deed dated 27.06.1962 at
clause 5 and 9 empowers the trustee to manage, collect rent, profit,
interest, and ant other income accruing to the trust only, the right of
alienation of properties was not conferred upon the trustees. Further
the trust is created as per the covenant and the settlement claim
made by holkar, the supplementary deed should be compliance with
covenant and settlement claim, in order to be valid in the eyes of
law. Assuming the properties are trust properties, the right of
alienation by the executing supplementary deed is invalid, as per the
covenant and settlement claim the trust is created to manage all the
properties for the purpose of charity.
21. That, as the properties are situated in whole India beyond the
boundaries of State of Madhya Pradesh and also para no. 12 of the
trust deed dated 27/06/1962 authorizes trustees to invest the trust
fund in accordance with the Indian Trust Act 1882, so the Indian
Trust Act will apply to the Khasgi Trust. As per Section 14 of the
Act, trustees are not having power to setup title adverse to the
beneficiaries, so the conduct of Trust to alienate the properties is
contrary to the provisions of Indian Trust Act.

22. That, as per Annexure P/18 filed in SLP 12241/2020, page no. 238,
the property situated at “Holkar Wada” Kishaghat, Haridwar,
Uttarakhand, measuring 11,931 Sq. ft. was sold to Shri Aniruddha
Kumar on 8th Feb 2007 for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs)
only on the resolution passed by Trust for leasing the property. The
Trust received Rs. 15,00,000/- only and remaining Rs. 35,00,000/-
was to be recovered. This act is contrary to the resolution because
selling right was not available, only lease right was resolved through
Resolution. This act shows the fraud committed by the trustees.

23. That, after selling of the property on 08/02/2007, trust passed a

resolution on 23/08/2007 authorized S C Malhotra to appoint some
employee to look after the legal & other matters only and for this
purpose authority was also given to him, to give power of attorney
to some employee of the trust/ person. Trustee S Malhotra gave
power to one Raghvendra Sharma (who was not employee of the
trust) on the same date 05/08/08 to enter into execute, carryout and
perform all lease agreements, rent agreements, contracts, sale deed
on behalf of the trust in respect of the said property and get the same
registered with the registering authority which was binding on the
 trust. This, act of furnishing power of attorney for sale of property is
contrary to resolution as power to look-after the legal matters does
not include selling rights to sell the properties. Typed Copy of
resolution dated 23/08/2007 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure I/8.

24. That, after selling the property on 08/02/2007, also through another
resolution dated 05/06/2008, (annexure P 18 Page number 236-237
filed by petitioner) Trust authorised trustee S. C. Malhotra and
Secretary K. S. Rathore to finalize the matter related to sell/transfer
of said properties of the trust at Haridwar and to recover remaining
amount Rs. 35,00,000/-. It shows that on the date of Sale
Agreement, no right for selling of property was available, this act of
Trustees comes under fraud and also the delegation of power is
contrary to the section 47 (Trusties cannot delegate) section 48 (Co-
trustees cannot act singly), section 51 (Trustees may not use trust
property for his own benefits) of Indian Trust Act 1882. So High
Court rightly held to investigate the matter through Economic
Offence Wing.

25. That, Raghvendra Sharma sold out the Trust property situated at
Kushaghat, Haridwar to Smt. Nikita W/o Shri Raghvendra Sharma
(His own wife) and to Aniruddh Kumar (His brother), so the whole
transection comes under fraud and also contrary to section 52
(Trustee for sale or his agent may not buy) of Indian Trust Act 1882.
So High Court rightly held to investigate the matter through
Economic Offence Wing.
26. That, the properties managed by Khasgi Trust are situated in all over
India, it may be possible that other properties were also been sold by
trustees fraudulently, which requires detailed investigation. So High
Court rightly held to investigate the matter through Economic
offence wing.

27. That, the sale agreements were committed through fraud and as
“fraud vitiate everything”, so various sale-deeds, by which the
properties were sold, are null and void and are not enforceable by
Law, as held by this Court in various judgements namely S.P.
Changalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by his Lrs. v/s Jagannath (Dead) by
Lrs. And others 1994 SCC 1 and in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v/s Taj
Kumar Rajinder Singh (2019) 14 SCC 449, para 55 to 81.

28. That, the purchaser of property situated at Kushaghat, Aniruddha

Sikhola, constructed a hotel on the religious property and earning
money thorough it, which causes monitory loss to the State of M.P,
also religious place is converted into commercial property for his
own benefit, which is against the sentiments of public at large as the
Kushavart Ghat was use for religious purpose only as described in
paragraph 106 of Judgement passed by High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Indore Bench.

29. That, earlier also a dispute was raised between Settler Usha Devi
Holkar and State of M.P. for one of the properties situated at Indore
and the matter came up before this Court, hon’ble Court held in
Judgement, State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Usha Devi (2015) 8 SCC
672 in paragraph 34, as under
 “ In the view of above discussion and as settled by this court in the
above judgments, Covenant was an act of State and any dispute
arising out of its terms cannot form the subject matter in any court
including Supreme Court, and there cannot be any implied
recognition of the property as private property at any later stages
when an opportunity had already been granted to raise issue in
terms of clause 3 of Article XII before defined period; above all, the
properties do not find in place in the Covenant. The plaintiff is
trying to interpret the Covenant that all properties which are in the
custody of Household Department are the personal properties of the
ruler. We feel that such interpretation and implied recognition is
impermissible as held by this Court in Draupadi Devi. Hence the
Court below erred in entertaining the suit without properly taking
into consideration the judgments and the proposition of law let
down by this Court in Catena of cases. Hance we are of the view
that relief in the suit falls within the ambit of Article 363 of The
Constitution of India and the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly,
first issue is answered in favour of appellant/ State and against
respondent/Plaintiff.”
Submissions Regarding Questions of Law.
30. That, the proposed questions of laws are only disputed question of
facts, which may not be entertain by this Court in Special Leave
Petition.

31. In reply to para 1 and 2 under the question of law, it is submitted

that, fraud committed by trustees, power of attorney holder and
purchasers of properties was first raised by present Intervener before
Nainital high Court, Uttarakhand and with the liberty granted by this
Court, before High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Indore. As all
 the pleadings of Intervener before High Court were dully supported
by relevant documents and on that basis High Court arrived on the
conclusion that, fraud has been committed by trusties, which is
required to be investigated. As such contention of petitioner are not
tenable in the eye of law. So question of Law proposed at para no. 1
& 2 in SLP no. 12241/2020 does not involve any legal issues.

32. In reply to para 3 under the question of law, it is submitted that That,
High Court declared the sale-deeds null and void, on the basis of
fraud committed by trustees, so once Court arrived on conclusion
that, fraud was committed and it is settled proposition of law that
“fraud vitiate everything”. Fraud vitiates every solemn proceeding
and no right can be claimed by a fraudster on the ground of
technicalities. It is permissible under writ jurisdiction to declare the
sale-deeds null and void. High Court has not cancelled the sale-
deeds which is only prerogative of Civil Court, but can declare the
effect of sale-deeds null and void. In case of A V Papayya Sastry Vs
Government of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 22, this court in paragraph 39
held that “The above principle, however, is subject to exception of
fraud. Once it is established that the order was obtained by a
successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such
order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is
non-existent and nonest and cannot be allowed to stand. This is
the fundamental principle of law and needs no further
elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or
order obtained by fraud has to be treated as nullity, whether by the
court of first instance or by the final court. And it has to be treated
as nonest by every Court, superior or inferior”.
 Division Bench of High Court rightly declared sale-deeds null and
void as Supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can be exercised in
case of error apparent on the face of the record, abuse of process and
if the issue goes to the root of the matter. So the proposed third
question of law is not having any legal aspect.

33. In reply to para 4 under the question of law, it is submitted that,

Whether Bar under Article 363 of The Constitution of India can be
invoked to bar legal proceedings, when the issue regarding covenant
was not before the Court, it is submitted that, the questioned
properties are not present in the list of private properties provided by
Ruler Yashwant Rao Holkar, during accession of Princely State,
Indore to the then Madhya Bharat Government, now State of
Madhya Pradesh. As earlier also this Hon’ble Court has decided the
matter related to the property which is not under the list of private
property in case State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Usha Devi (2015) 8
SCC 672 between the same parties, this Court invoked the Bar of
Article 363 Constitution of India and High Court only relied on this
Judgement to resolve the Lis as the questioned properties are not in
the list of private properties.

34. That, as per Article XII sub-clause (3) of the Covenant –

“If any dispute arises as to whether any item of property is the

private property of the Ruler or State Property, it shall be referred
to such person as the Government of India may nominate, in
consultation with the Raj Pramukh, and the decision of that person
shall be final and binding on all parties concerned:
 Provided that no such dispute shall be so referable after the first
day of July 1949.”
That, His Highness Yashwant Rao Holkar raised claim over Khasgi
properties during his life time, before Government of India and
claim was finally settled on 06th May 1949, same was rejected and it
was informed that, Khasgi Properties and income from Khasgi shall
be treated as lapsed for all time to the Madhya Bharat Government.
On this settlement, no dispute was raised by His Highness Yashwant
Rao Holkar before any Court of Law. But after his death, Usha Devi
and others became trustees of Khasgi Trust, Trust Deed was created
in 1962 and further through Supplementary Trust Deed 1972, Trust
alienated the properties and claim ownership over them through
resolution, which is contrary to Law.

35. That, regarding fifth question of law which relates to the

applicability of M. P. Public Trust Act over Khasgi Trust, it is
submitted that, as per order passed by Registrar of Public Trust
Indore in case no. 5B/113 of 1966-67 Old 113B 113(1) 1970-71 new
Number, dated 10 August 1971, it is clarified that State Government
has full control on the activities of the Trust and there is no need to
get it registered U/s 36(1) (a) of Trust Act. So only mere registration
is exempted, but application of the Act on the trust activities were
never exempted as Trust was under control of State Government.

36. That, sixth question of Law is regarding power granted to Trust to

manage, preserve and maintain trust properties carries with it the
implied power to sell the trust properties for the benefit of the Trust,
it is submitted that, as per Latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet”.
 Trust can’t be given any such right, which they don’t have. Trust is
only caretaker, not the owner of the properties.

37. That, seventh question of law is whether title to 246 properties

spread all over in Country can be determined and/or transferred by a
way of an executive order passed by a local Authorities in one State
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the affected party. It
is submitted that, all the 246 properties spread all over the Country
were already lapsed for all time in the State of M.P. and as the
owner of all the properties State can take steps to mutate it’s name
under the heading of owner in the documents and no other party is
required to be heard for doing the same.

38. That, as Collector Indore is Chief Executive of State of M.P having

power to mention the name of State in the documents through
executive order. Trust was only for purpose of upkeeping,
maintenance, and preserving the religious endowment only so there
is no requirement to give an opportunity of hearing to the Trustees.
However, Collector Indore who was also Registrar of Public Trust,
issued notice to the Trust and on that notice, Trust appeared before
the authority and filed the submissions on 20/05/2012. So enough
opportunity was given by Collector, Indore as Registrar Public
Trust. Both the orders were passed on the same date ie; on
05/11/2012 by Collector, Indore, under the capacity of Collector,
Indore and Registrar, Public Trust. Brief details of submission of
reply by Trust before Registrar is mentioned in paragraph 14 of the
Judgement of Learned High Court.
39. That, as eighth and ninth question of Laws are related to each other
raising contention of promissory estoppel, it is submitted that,
property of Government cannot be sold on issuance of D.O. letter
without Cabinet decision, so letter dated 13/06/1969, issued by
Chief Secretory, Government of Madhya Pradesh, who was also one
of the Trustees in the Trust, does not create ownership right on the
properties to the Trust. That, “as per the rules of the business of the
Executive Government of Madhya Pradesh, framed in exercise of
powers under clauses (2) & (3) of Article 166 of Constitution od
India, Proposals involving the alienation either temporary of
permanent by way of sale, grant or lease of Government property
exceeding Rs. Ten lakhs in value shall have to be placed before the
Council of Ministers and delt with only in accordance with the
provisions laid down supplementary instructions 18 under rule 30.
No such procedure was ever followed for alienation of property.
Letter does not amount to a sanction of Council of Ministers” as
mentioned in paragraph 122 of the judgement passed by High Court.
So principal promissory estoppel does not apply in the present case.
This issue is very well settled by High Court from paragraph 120 to
127 of the Judgement.

40. That, regarding tenth question of Law, it is submitted that, Learned

High Court rightly held that, “this Court does not have the power to
re-write the Trust-deed nor is having the power to enact the statue
in respect of Trust, so question of re-writing the Trust-deed does not
arise”. Committee is constituted for the purposes, that the properties
mentioned in the schedule of original Trust-deed shall be preserved,
maintain and keep intact for the future generation to come and to
 inquire the conduct of trustees in respect of property sold by the
Trust, as mentioned in the paragraph 159 to 161 of the Judgement.

41. That, regarding eleventh question of Law, it is submitted that,

through Gazette Notification dated 16/07/1962, properties were
handed over to the Trust only for the purpose of preserving,
maintaining and upkeeping of the properties and until the fact
regarding selling of properties by the Trust was not came into the
knowledge of present Intervener, who was acted as whistle blower
not only in the State of Uttarakhand but also in State of Madhya
Pradesh by sending letters to the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh
as well as the then member of Parliament, Indore, raised his voice.
Trust was acting unethical and against the moral principles, though
the then Divisional Commissioner Indore and the then
Superintendent Engineer, P.W.D., Indore were also representing
State of Madhya Pradesh in the Trust itself under the capacity of
trustees, who were not defending the interest of State of M.P.

42. That, regarding twelve question of Law, it is submitted that,

judgment passed by High Court of one State is not binding on
another High Court of other State. Every High Court has its own
jurisdiction, also having inherent power given under the Constitution
of India. It is also submitted that, facts of the petitions in both PIL
before Uttarakhand High Court and the petitions filed before High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore are different and judgement passed
by both High Courts are differ on merits also.
 43. That, regarding thirteenth question of law, it is submitted that all the
concerning parties were duly served, appeared and pleaded before
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, so it cannot be
said that necessary party was not impleaded during the hearing of
petitions in the High Court.

44. It is submitted that the Petitioner is trying to wiggle out of the fraud
committed by them attempting to take asylum under the Notification
dated 27.06.1962 and letter dated 13.06.1969 wherein the state has
given mere clarification regarding right of alienation of the
properties, the neither the notification nor letter deals with the nature
of the properties, and valid title of the trust over the properties. the
specific contention of the state as well as the intervener is that
properties under dispute belongs to State as per the covenant and
settlement entered between the Holkar and State of Madhya Bharath
and the disputed properties does not form part of private properties
of the Holkar.

45. That, affidavit is being filed in support of this intervention

application.
PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts and grounds, it is, therefore most humbly and
respectfully prayed the following relief:

(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

allow the application filed by intervener and
submissions made by intervener may be taken on
record.
 (ii) That, the Special Leave Petition filed by petitioner may
be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice.

(iii) That, any other appropriate, order or direction which

this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be
passed in favor of the Intervener and in the interest of
safeguarding the govt properties belonging to public at
large.

(iv) That, any other relief may be given which the Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the interest of Justice.

Drawn by Filed by
Ashish Joshi,
A Sriram
Settled by Sameer Saxena Ronak Karanpuria
Advocate on Record

Filed on: /12/2020

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. of 2020
IN
SLP (Civil) No. 12241 of 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE KHASGI (DEVI AHILYABAI HOLKAR
CHARITIES) TRUST INDORE & ANR. ..Petitioners
Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS ..Respondents

AND
IN THE MATTER OF :-
VIJAY SINGH PAL …Intervenor

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The intervener is filing accompanying intervention application in

SLP (Civil) No. 12241 of 2020
2. That the intervener has stated the facts of the case and the grounds
arising there-from in the accompanying petition and the same may
be treated as part and parcel of this application.

3. The Annexure I has been translated by the intervenor and the same
is the true translation of its respective originals in Hindi. As the
official translation is likely to take a long time the intervenor
respectfully prays that he may kindly be exempted in the interests of
justice from filing official translation of the aforesaid documents.

4. That the present application is being made bona fide in the interest
of justice.

PRAYER

In the above premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Exempt the intervenor herein from filing the official translation of

Annexure I in the above mentioned matter.

b) pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE INTERVENOR

BEING DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn & Filed By

RONAK KARANPURIA
Advocate for the intervenor
Filed on: