Qutub Minar Row: Delhi Court Defers Order On Intervention Claiming Ownership Of All Land Between Ganga & Yamuna From Agra To Gurugram

In connection with the appeals seeking restoration of alleged temples in Delhi's Qutub Minar complex, a Delhi Court on Saturday deferred orders on an intervention application filed by one Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh seeking right over the territories running between the river Yamuna and Ganga from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bullandshahr and Gurgaon.

Additional District Judge Dinesh Kumar will now be passing the order on Monday, September 19. The Court had reserved the order on September 13.

The Court heard Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma for the intervenor, Advocate Subhash Gupta appearing for Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and a counsel appearing for one of the appellants.

ASI had argued that the intervention application deserves to be dismissed for the reason that Singh has not specifically claimed any right in the appeal and he has no locus standi to be impleaded as party.

ASI had further contended that Singh claimed rights for large and vast areas in several states, however, he was sitting idle on it for the last 150 years without raising issue before any court.

ASI averred that last year, the Delhi High Court had dismissed a similar plea filed by one Sultana Begum, seeking possession of Red Fort, claiming herself to be the widow of the great grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II. Her plea was dismissed on the ground of there being an inordinate delay in approaching the Court.

About Impleadment Application

The applicant stated that the intervenor is Karta of Beswan Family, being heir of Raja Rohini Raman Dhawaj Prasad Singh who died in the year 1950. According to the application, the family known as Beswan Family were by origin Jats descended from Raja Nand Ram who had died in 1695.

The application averred that the Jat consideration had became firmly establish at the death of Shahjahan in the year 1658 and during the war time ensured for the possession of throne, Raja Nand Ram a great grandson of Makan found means to establish himself as head of his tribe and supported by the poarch Raja of Daryapur.

The application then submitted that during the lifetime of Raja Rohini Raman Dhawaj Prasad Singh in 1947, another Ruler from the said family, the British India and provinces became free and independent and that he was the owner of Beswan Avibajya Rajya Beswan Estate Hathras Estate, Musran Estate and Brindaban Estate from Mahabharata Period, from Meerut to Agra between the Ganga, Jammuna till his death in the year 1950.

It further stated that after the death of Raja Rohini Raman Dhawaj, properties were inherited by his legal heirs i.e. 4 sons and two widows (including the applicant) as per law of 1950. Ancestral land and properties continued in Beswan family for generation since 1695 AD.

The plea stated that no merger was signed for "Beswan Avibhajya Rajya Beswan and Beswan Families Beswan Estate Ancestral land and properties which continued to be inherited for generation since 1873 to 1950.

The applicant claimed that after Independence of India in 1947, the Indian Government neither entered into any treaty, nor there was any accession, nor there was any merger agreement with the Beswan Avibhajya Rajya Beswan. It has been claimed that there was no acquisition process and hence the Beswan Avibhajya Rajya of Beswan family is as on date the status of princely state, independent and own and hold all the territories of united province of Agra running between the river Jumuna & Ganga from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bullandshahr and Gurgaon.

"That the Central Govt., State Govt. of Delhi and State Govt of U.P. without due process of law encroached upon the legal rights of the applicant and misused the power, allotted, allocated and death with the property of the applicant," the application added.

Accordingly, it was argued that the area under the South Delhi false within the legal rights of the applicant. Qutub Minar, centre of the controversy, is situation in the said jurisdiction.

It was averred that any judgment in the matter would injure the legal rights of the applicant.

About the Main Suit

In the original suit, the plaintiffs alleged that around 27 Hindu and Jain temples were desecrated and damaged raising the construction of the said Mosque in place of those temples.

The civil judge had rejected the suit after noting that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship Act 1991 and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code for non-­disclosure of cause of action.

The Civil judge had also observed that the wrongs of the past cannot be a basis for disturbing the present peace and that if it's allowed, fabric of constitution, secular character will be damaged.