JUDGMENT 1. - An application for eviction was filed on behalf of the State Government before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 in regard to two properties entered in the Inventory of the private properties of the Ruler of Jaipur. The application was submitted on 23.6.2003. Preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the contesting respondent before the Estate Officer that since the properties had been entered in the Inventory of the properties of the Ruler of Jaipur as part of covenant, no proceedings under the Act of 1964 could be taken against the contesting respondent. The objection was rejected by the Estate Officer vide order dated 27.3.2004. 2. Aggrieved by the above order dated 27.3.2004, an appeal was preferred by the contesting respondent before the District Judge. While allowing the appeal vide order dated 12.8.2005, the Additional District Judge, Jaipur set aside the order passed by the Estate Officer. While allowing the application filed on behalf of the contesting respondent, the appellate court further held that the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction in the present matter. The order dated 12.8.2005 passed by the lower appellate court is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after 26th amendment in the Constitution in the year 1971 which came into force from 28.12.1971, Article 291 and Article 362 had been repealed. Article 291 was in regard to privy purse to the Ex-Rulers of Princely States whereas Article 363 refers to right and privileges of Rulers of Indian States. Seeking protection of the above amendment in the Constitution, it has been alleged that the disputed properties in the present writ petition shall revert back to the State and proceedings under the Act of 1964 could be initated before the Estate Officer. A list of Inventory of the private properties of the Ruler of Jaipur as part of covenant has been placed on record. As per Plan 12 and 13, Bungalow No. 15 and Bungalow No. 16 were to be maintained and owned by the Rajasthan Government but, it has further been mentioned that His Highness' Household Officers will be allowed to use them free of rent. As per Plan 12 and 13, Bungalow No. 15 and Bungalow No. 16 were to be maintained and owned by the Rajasthan Government but, it has further been mentioned that His Highness' Household Officers will be allowed to use them free of rent. His Highness will return these bungalows when he does not need them. It has been alleged that in view of the constitutional amendment in the year 1971, the contesting respondent has no right over the property in dispute. 5. A bare reading of the Inventory which was part of convent and provisions of the Constitution of India would show that submission, so made on behalf of the petitioner are wholly misconceived. By way of amendment in the Constitution in the year 1971, the privy purses and rights and privileges of the Rulers of erstwhile Indian States had been stopped. However, under Article 363, there is further bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. Even Article 363 A does not affect the protection given to the Ex-Rulers under Article 363 as has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji of Alwar Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 (1) SCC 512 , and (2) Dr. Karan Singh Vs. State of J&K & Anr., 2004(5) SCC 698 . Article 363 A can only be referred and considered in the context of Article 291 and Article 362 as deleted by 26th amendment in the Constitution. It is not disputed that list of Inventory as relied upon by the petitioner is part of covenant with the Ruler of the then Jaipur State. That apart, even there is no explanation as to why necessary proceedings even if permitted were not taken for more than 31 years. 6. Since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the lower appellate Court, in view of observations made above, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this Court under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.Petition dismissed. *******