A local court in Delhi on Tuesday disposed of the intervention application filed by Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh, claiming ownership rights over the area falling under between the rivers Yamuna and Ganga, stretching from Agra to Gurgaon, and including the historic Qutub Minar.

 
The Court of Additional District Judge Dinesh Kumar passed the order after listening to submissions made by  Advocate Subhash Gupta, appearing for Archaeological Survey of India (ASI); Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, representing intervenor Kunwar Mahendra, and a Counsel appearing for one of the appellants.

Earlier on September 13, the Saket Court had reserved its order on the application.

Arguing on the maintainability of the petition, Sharma had alleged that the government had taken over the entire property in 1947 without his permission.

The ASI 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 the issue before any court.

The national agency noted that last year, the Delhi High Court had dismissed a similar petition filed by one Sultana Begum, seeking possession of Red Fort, claiming herself to be widow of the great grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II. Her plea was dismissed, since there had been an inordinate delay in approaching the Court.

As per the applicant, Kunwar Mahendra was the Karta of Beswan Family, being heir of Raja Rohini Raman Dhawaj Prasad Singh, who died in 1950. He said during the lifetime of Raja Rohini Raman 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 1950. 
It added 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 the Beswan family for generations since 1695 AD. 
The application noted 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 generations, from 1873 to 1950.
The petitioner said after Independence 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. 
He claimed that there was no acquisition process and hence, the Beswan Avibhajya Rajya of Beswan family as on date, had the status of princely state, independent and owned all the territories of united province of Agra running between the rivers Yamuna and Ganga, stretching from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahr and Gurgaon.

It further alleged that the Central government, besides the governments of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, without the due process of law, encroached upon the legal rights of the applicant.

Hearing in a case pertaining to plea seeking restoration of Hindu and Jain temples at the Qutub Minar complex, has been deferred to September 13 by a Delhi Court.

The Civil Court Judge Dinesh Kumar from the Saket Court said that another date was given after noting that the counsel for an intervenor sought more time.

The judge ordered that the “Written synopsis have been filed in behalf of the appellants and respondent 1,2,3 in relation to the appeal. Last opportunity to the applicant to argue on the application”

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)has clearly brought forth the stand before the Court and said that :

1. The applicant has not claimed specifically any right in the appeal.

2. ASI said why does the claimant claims rights for large and vast areas in different states was sitting idle on it for the last 150 years without raising issue before any court. How can he just any fine morning come to this Court as an impleader without any basis.

3. ASI claimed that due to the absence of taking a stand on this issue in the last 150 years, the issue itself is liable to be dismissed as the period of limitation is several times over.

4. A similar case came before Delhi High Court where one Sultana Begum claiming to be the wife of great grandson of Bahadur Shah Zafar said that she was in possession of Red fort as she is inherited that…the Court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of delay without going into merits. The facts of the two cases are similar. Here he is not even claiming title or possession.

5. Important aspect that ASI brought was that the applicant was not a party to the original suit and this is an appeal…since he was not in the original suit, he has no locus standi to come here and implead himself as one of the parties.

A new application was filed by a Delhi resident claiming ownership of the property where the Minar is located so Judge Dinesh Kumar on June 9,had to defer the order on the plea.

Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh, the intervenor, claimed ownership of the Qutub Minar, and asked that the minaret along with Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque inside the complex mosque should be given to him.

The Court had then asked the ASI along with all contesting parties to file a reply to this application and posted the case for hearing today.

The suit before Judge Kumar challenges the order that was passed in December 2021 by civil judge Neha Sharma, who had dismissed a suit seeking restoration of 27 Hindu and Jain Temples in Delhi’s Qutub Minar complex.

”Past wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future” the order held.

It order said that ancient and historical monuments cannot be used for a purpose which runs counter to their nature as religious places of worship, but can always be used for some other purpose which is not inconsistent with their religious character.

The order said that any monument once declared as protected monument and is owned by the government, no claim can be made for using it as the place of worship.

Advocate Hari Shankar Jain and advocate Ranjana Agnihotri sought restoration of deities within the complex and the right to do puja and darshan of the deities.They have filed suit on behalf of deities Lord Vishnu and Lord Rishabh Dev through their next friend.

It was alleged that the Mosque, that has been declared a protected monument under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, was built after destruction of the temples.

In an affidavit earlier, the ASI had informed the Court that images of Hindu and Jain deities were reused for the construction of the Qutub Minar complex.

The ASI however made it very clear that that the same cannot be a ground to claim right to worship over monuments.

Under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), the monument is protected.