Jaipur State - Revision history

Jyoti: /* After 1947 */

2022-01-28T19:14:09Z

‎After 1947

Pdewan: /* Jaipur State */

2017-09-10T18:21:20Z

‎Jaipur State

Pdewan: /* Administration */

2017-09-10T18:04:23Z

‎Administration

Pdewan at 17:56, 10 September 2017

2017-09-10T17:56:35Z

Pdewan: Pdewan moved page Jaipur State, 1908 to Jaipur State without leaving a redirect

2017-09-10T17:11:24Z

Pdewan moved page Jaipur State, 1908 to Jaipur State without leaving a redirect

Pdewan: /* Jaipur State */

2015-01-13T09:29:13Z

‎Jaipur State

Pdewan: Created page with " {| class="wikitable" |- |colspan="0"|
This article has been extracted from
THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908.
OXFORD, A..."

2015-01-13T09:24:27Z

Created page with " {| class="wikitable" |- |colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%"> This article has been extracted from <br/> THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908.<br/> OXFORD, A..."

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 28 January 2022
Line 849:		Line 849:

	The Pakistani PM justified asking for a share of the riches. "It is clear that the treasure is a historical inheritance of the subcontinent which was bequeathed to it by its pre-colonial sovereignties, especially the Mughal emperors in coalition with their Rajput allies. That, before or during the anarchy which ravaged the subcontinent and invited foreign domination, these assets were misappropriated and hoarded by a particular warlord has no bearing whatsoever on their legal or moral ownership." Indira, however, would have none of it.		The Pakistani PM justified asking for a share of the riches. "It is clear that the treasure is a historical inheritance of the subcontinent which was bequeathed to it by its pre-colonial sovereignties, especially the Mughal emperors in coalition with their Rajput allies. That, before or during the anarchy which ravaged the subcontinent and invited foreign domination, these assets were misappropriated and hoarded by a particular warlord has no bearing whatsoever on their legal or moral ownership." Indira, however, would have none of it.
		+
		+	==Property dispute==
		+	===SC order of 2021===
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/odn/timesofindia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/12/21&entity=Ar01709&sk=6D2CA03C&mode=text Joychen Joseph, Dec 21, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	The Supreme Court has put the curtains down on the protracted legal battle involving Jaipur royal family members over ownership in prized properties, Jai Mahal Hotels and Rambagh Palace Hotel, after the court-appointed mediator Justice (retd) Kurian Joseph brokered an amicable settlement of dispute.
		+
		+	According to the terms of settlement, Devraj Singh and his sister Lalitya Kumari, the grandchildren of Maharani Gayatri Devi, will get back the luxurious heritage property, Jai Mahal Palace Hotel, from their step uncles while they forego their stake in Rambagh Palace in favour of their uncles.
		+
		+	Devraj Singh and Lalitya Kumari, children of late Jagat Singh, Sawai Man Singh’s lone child from his marriage with Gayatri Devi, will get back their inherited properties after an amicable settlement within the Jaipur royal family.
		+
		+	The family members of the Jaipur royalty, who had stakes in the personal properties of the Jaipur royals that included luxurious hotels and other immovable properties, decided to go for an amicable settlement out of the court following the Supreme Court’s direction to various stakeholders to explore that possibility. This followed years of legal battles being contested in various courts, including the National Company Law Tribunal.
		+
		+	The Supreme Court had appointed retired apex court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as the mediator to work out a solution.
		+
		+	According to the settlement, Vijit Singh and his brother Jai Singh, sons of late Prithviraj, Sawai Man Singh’s son from his marriage with Maharani Kishore Kunwar, agreed to handover Jai Mahal Palace Hotel to Devraj Singh and Lalitya Kumari at a settlement arrived at on December 15. The majestic property is run as a hotel by the Tata Group under contract management.
		+
		+	Devraj Singh and Lalitya Kumari would in turn forego their shares in the Rambagh Palace entirely in favour of Jai Singh and Vijit Singh.
		+
		+	Following the settlement, Justice Joseph presented the amicable settlement to the apex court which passed an order to this effect that would be binding on all stakeholders.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|J
		+	JAIPUR STATE]]
		+	[[Category:Places\|J
		+	JAIPUR STATE]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 [[Category:India|J]]
 [[Category:Places|J]]
-NOTE: This article has been scanned from pre-1947, British Raj records. Therefore, it contains several scann1ng errcrs. You will help in the preservation of this information about old Jaipur by copying the garbled paragraphs, remcv!ng all svch m1stakcs and sendIng the corrected paragraphs as messages to the Facebook community, [http://www.facebook.com/Indpaedia Indpaedia.com]. All information used will be gratefully acknowledged in your name.
+NOTE: This article has been scanned from pre-1947, British Raj records. Therefore, it contains several scann1ng errcrs. You will help us in our efforts to preserve this information about old Jaipur (and other places in India) by copying the garbled paragraphs, remcv!ng all svch m1stakcs and sendIng the corrected paragraphs as messages to the Facebook community, [http://www.facebook.com/Indpaedia Indpaedia.com]. All information used will be gratefully acknowledged in your name.
 ''Note 2: National, provincial and district boundaries have changed considerably since 1908. Typically, old states, ‘divisions’ and districts have been broken into smaller units, and many tahsils upgraded to districts. Some units have since been renamed. Therefore, this article is being posted mainly for its historical value. ''
@@ Line 827: / Line 827: @@
 (1886), and Medico-topographical Account of Jeypore (1895); Jaipur
 Census Report for 1901 (Lucknow, 1903).]
 =After 1947=
 ==1976: Indira Gandhi orders a treasure hunt==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 10 September 2017
Line 827:		Line 827:
	(1886), and Medico-topographical Account of Jeypore (1895); Jaipur		(1886), and Medico-topographical Account of Jeypore (1895); Jaipur
	Census Report for 1901 (Lucknow, 1903).]		Census Report for 1901 (Lucknow, 1903).]
		+	=After 1947=
		+	==1976: Indira Gandhi orders a treasure hunt==
		+	[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indira-Gandhi-ordered-a-gold-hunt-in-1976-Pak-sought-share/articleshow/24680280.cms Indrani Bagchi \| Indira Gandhi ordered a gold hunt in 1976; Pak sought share \| TNN \| Oct 25, 2013 \| The Times of India]
		+
		+
		+
		+	NEW DELHI: The last time the Indian government, led by the redoubtable Indira Gandhi, went looking for hidden gold among private property, Pakistan also jumped on to the bandwagon.
		+
		+	In 1976, at the height of the Emergency, Indira ordered the Indian Army to march off to look for hidden treasure in Jaigarh fort, which was still a property of the Jaipur royal family. Legend had it that Man Singh had stashed away huge amounts of treasure from some of his campaigns. That legend persisted after India's independence. With Gayatri Devi imprisoned during Emergency, Indira thought it fit to search Jaipur royal properties for the treasure.
		+
		+	The correspondence finds space in an invaluable work of history, India-Pakistan Relations (1947-2007), edited by Avtar Singh Bhasin, released earlier this year and is mandatory reading for any student of history.
		+
		+	Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then prime minister of Pakistan, heard about the treasure hunt and decided Pakistan should not be denied its share. In a letter to Indira on August 11, 1976, Bhutto said, "As your expedition of locating the treasure proceeds, I would urge you to remain cognizant of Pakistan's claim to its due share of this wealth. This is an asset which was not known at the time of partition between the two successor states (then called dominions) of India and Pakistan.
		+
		+	"However, the order that was enforced with the agreement of both governments did not fail to provide that any property or benefits can be shared between them where such sharing is just and equitable. The historical provenance of this treasure, regardless of the location of its physical discovery, makes it the joint patrimony of our two countries and I am confident that, with an approach based on equity, we will dis-countenance any usurpation and amicably arrive at a formula for the division between us."
		+
		+	Indira did not dignify Bhutto's claim with a response until December of that year. By then, the Army division sent to unearth the treasure returned empty-handed after three months of fruitless search. Responding to Bhutto on December 31, 1976, Indira said, "I had asked our legal experts to give careful consideration to the claim you made on behalf of Pakistan. They are of the clear opinion that the claim has no legal basis. Incidentally, the treasure has turned out to be non-existent."
		+
		+	Bhutto complimented Indira on abolishing the old royalty, saying, "Both our countries have taken the same view of the rights of the princely order and, with complete justification, abolished it as an appendage or association of the colonial regime. I am certain that no one can maintain the argument that your government's action involves confiscation of the private property of any individual or dynasty."
		+
		+	The Pakistani PM justified asking for a share of the riches. "It is clear that the treasure is a historical inheritance of the subcontinent which was bequeathed to it by its pre-colonial sovereignties, especially the Mughal emperors in coalition with their Rajput allies. That, before or during the anarchy which ravaged the subcontinent and invited foreign domination, these assets were misappropriated and hoarded by a particular warlord has no bearing whatsoever on their legal or moral ownership." Indira, however, would have none of it.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
- {| class="wikitable"
 |-
 |colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
-This article has been extracted from <br/>
+This section has been extracted from <br/>
 THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908.<br/>
@@ Line 11: / Line 13: @@
 [[Category:India|J]]
 [[Category:Places|J]]
-''Note: National, provincial and district boundaries have changed considerably since 1908. Typically, old states, ‘divisions’ and districts have been broken into smaller units, and many tahsils upgraded to districts. Some units have since been renamed. Therefore, this article is being posted mainly for its historical value. ''
+NOTE: This article has been scanned from pre-1947, British Raj records. Therefore, it contains several scann1ng errcrs. You will help in the preservation of this information about old Jaipur by copying the garbled paragraphs, remcv!ng all svch m1stakcs and sendIng the corrected paragraphs as messages to the Facebook community, [http://www.facebook.com/Indpaedia Indpaedia.com]. All information used will be gratefully acknowledged in your name.
-=Jaipur State=
 State in the north-east and east of Rajputana, lying
 between 25° 41' and 28° 34' N. and 74° 41' and 77"" 13' E. Its area is
@@ Line 585: / Line 592: @@
 except in the case of the Tahsilddr of Shekhawati.
-The ndzim of
+The nazim of
-Shekhawati has the same original criminal powers as the Faujddri
+Shekhawati has the same original criminal powers as the Faujdari
 Add/at mentioned below. For the disposal of civil suits not exceeding
-Rs. 300 in value, instituted at the ca])ital, there are three Munsifs ;
+Rs. 300 in value, instituted at the capital, there are three Munsifs ;
 similarly the less important criminal cases at the capital are decided
-by tw(j nail>-fai/jddrs, who can punish with imprisonment up to six
+by two naib-faujdars, who can punish with imprisonment up to six
-months and fine up to Rs. 100. The Addlat Dnvdni^ or civil court,
+months and fine up to Rs. 100. The Adalat Dnvdni^ or civil court,
 consists of two judges who, sitting separately, decide suits beyond
 the powers of the Munsifs, while jointly they hear appeals against the
-decisions of the Tahsilddr of Shekhawati, the uaib-7idzims, and the
+decisions of the Tahsildar of Shekhawati, the naib-7idzims, and the
-Munsifs. The Faiijdari Addlat, or court of the chief magistrate, can
+Munsifs. The Faujdari Adalat, or court of the chief magistrate, can
 punish with imprisonment up to four years and fine up to Rs. 400.
-It
+It  disposes of criminal cases beyond the powers of the ndzims (excluding
 disposes of criminal cases beyond the powers of the ndzims (excluding
 Shekhawati) and of the naib-faujddrs ; it also hears appeals against the
 decisions of the Tahsilddr of Shekhawati and the naib-ndzims. The

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 .lated peaks. The centre of the State is an elevated
 table-land of triangular form, from 1,400 to 1,600
-feet above sea-level. The base of this triangle is a line running
+feet above sea-level.
 west from Jaipur city ; the eastern side consists of ranges of hills
 running north and south along the Alwar border : while the apex is
 formed by a broken chain of hills, a portion of the Aravalij range,
 which runs from near the Sambhar Lake in a north-easterly direction
@@ Line 80: / Line 77: @@
 Nickel and cobalt are found at Babai (7 miles south of Khetri) in
 association with copper pyrites disseminated through the slates, the ore
-bein" known as s^chfa. .Vt Karwar near Hindaun iron occurs in the
+bein" known as s^chfa. .Vt Karwar near Hindaun iron occurs in the jaspideous shales of the Gwalior series, while near Rajmahal in the
-−
-−
-−
-−
 jaspideous shales of the Gwalior series, while near Rajmahal in the
 south-west garnets are collected from the Aravalli schists.
@@ Line 127: / Line 119: @@
 Kanauj, and became independent. The eighth in descent from Vajra-
 daman was Tej Karan, otherwise known as Dulha Rai (' the bridegroom
-prince'), who left Gwalior about 11 28. There are different stories
+prince'), who left Gwalior about 11 28.
 as to the cause of his departure. Some say that he was expelled
 by his uncle, and others that he left in order to marry Maroni, the
@@ Line 134: / Line 128: @@
 Rajput, and who repaid the confidence thus placed in him by usurping
 that principality. Both accounts, however, agree that Dulha Rai received
 from his father-in-law (who had no sons) the district of Daosa ; and
 the Kachwaha dynasty in luistern Rajputana may he said to date from
@@ Line 183: / Line 172: @@
 is borne by his descendants to this day. The word means 'one
 and a quarter,' and is supposed to measure the superiority of the
-bearer to all his contem[)oraries, whom the unit signifies. He succeeded
+bearer to all his contem[)oraries, whom the unit signifies.
-−
-VOF,. XIII. c c
-−
-−
-−
-−
 to the gaddi of Amber in 1699, and died in 1743. He was chiefly
 remarkable for his scientific knowledge and skill. He caused many
@@ Line 236: / Line 220: @@
 of a British officer to reside at the capital. In 1835, on the succession
 of Maharaja Ram Singh, a serious disturbance in the city took place.
 in which colonel Alves, the Governnr-Generars Agent in Rajputana,
 was wounded, and his Assistant, Mr. Martin Blake, killed. After

Jaipur State - Revision history

Jyoti: /* After 1947 */

Pdewan: /* Jaipur State */

Pdewan: /* Administration */

Pdewan at 17:56, 10 September 2017

Pdewan: Pdewan moved page Jaipur State, 1908 to Jaipur State without leaving a redirect

Pdewan: /* Jaipur State */

Pdewan: Created page with " {| class="wikitable" |- |colspan="0"| This article has been extracted from THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908. OXFORD, A..."

Pdewan: Created page with " {| class="wikitable" |- |colspan="0"|
This article has been extracted from
THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908.
OXFORD, A..."