Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking a direction to adopt the process of merger, accession or enter into treaty with the petitioner and acquisition of territories of the petitioner and pay the due compensation to the petitioner. Subramonium Prasad, J., held the present petition as an abuse of the process of law and complete waste of judicial time and imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the petitioner to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
The Petitioner claimed to be the successor and heir of the Beswan family and claims property rights to the Beswan Avibhajya Rajya as its ruler, which consists of United Province of Agra running between river Yamuna and Ganga from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahr including, 65 revenue estates of Delhi Gurgaon and Uttarakhand. The Petitioner is stated to be the only surviving son of the four sons of Raja Thakur Mat Matang Dhwaj Prasad Singh and, therefore, claimed to be the present Ruler of the Beswan Avibhajya Rajya. The British Government passed Raja Mahendra Pratap Short title Singh Estates Act, 1923 and granted Sanad dated 07-09-1924 in favour of Prem Pratap Singh. In 1960, the Union of India vide Bill, Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh Estates (Repeal) Bill, 1960, has repealed the Act, 1923 and has withdrawn the Sanad dated 07-09-1924. Thus, the Beswan Avibhajya Rajya as on date holds the status of a Princely State and the Beswan family holds the territories of United Provinces of Agra running between river Yamuna and Ganga from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahar and other territories.
The petitioner was seeking to direct the Union of India not to conduct the election for Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Assemblies, Local Bodies within the territory of the petitioner, without following the due process of law for merger of sovereign state United Provinces of Agra i.e. Sovereign State of Beswan Avibhajay Rajya of Beswan territories of petitioner into Union of India. It was also sought to direct the Union of India not to collect any revenue with immediate effect within the territory of the petitioner without following due process of law merger, acquisition and payment of compensation and to assess the revenue so far collected ever since 1950 to till date within the territory of petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner or deposit in the Court as per law.
The petition further prayed to direct the Union of India not to carry out any construction work/ allow any construction work in agricultural land and any other land within the territories of the petitioner till disposal of the present petition including unauthorised colonies area and not to take any decision in respect of all unauthorized colonies 1731 and 69 situated on the territory of petitioner without following the merger or acquisition and payment of compensation as per law. It was also sought to direct the Union of India, if not possible to acquire the land and properties of the petitioner merger, ultimately get the territories of the petitioner vacated and handover the same to the petitioner and direct the UOI that till the time, the territories are handed over to the petitioners no construction, alteration or any lease/ allotment of the land or the properties be allocated without the permission of the court, deposit of compensation in the court, the properties of the petitioner be protected from creating 3rd party interest by competent authority/ officials of Union of India.
The petitioner claimed that in 1900 AD, a dispute arose between two brothers in the Beswan family, namely, Garud Dhwaj Prasad and Superun Dhwaj and the Privy Council decided in favour of Garura Dhwaj Prasad. In 1911, Britishers shifted their capital from Calcutta from Delhi and included the Province of Agra and Oudh in the territory of Delhi without any annexation of the properties and, therefore, the sanad dated 07-09-1924 was of significance. In 1947-48 during the political integration of British India, 562 Princely States were acceded by the Rulers to the Government of India but the forefathers of the Petitioner did not enter into any treaty nor was there any accession and hence Avibhajya Rajya of Beswan till date holds the status of an independent Princely State. The land between United Province of Agra running between river Yamuna and Ganga from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahar, 65 revenue states of Delhi, including Gurgaon and Uttarakhand comes under the Princely State of Bewan family and the land belongs to the petitioner’s family since there was no accession agreement signed between the forefathers of the petitioner and the Government of India.
The petitioner contended that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh without following the due process of law has encroached upon the rights of the Petitioner have dealt with the properties of the Petitioner and despite various complaints given by the Petitioner, no action has been taken.
The Court noted that the Petitioner filed only certain maps which did not indicate the existence of Beswan family. Certain articles filed also did not throw any light on the existence of the Beswan family or that of the Petitioner had any right to succeed to the Princely State of Beswan family, if it existed. The judgments of the Privy Council only dealt with the inter-party rights of one of the Petitioner and the applications filed by the Petitioner in this Court did not show any unimpeachable piece of evidence pointing out to any right of the Petitioner which would entitle the Petitioner to any of the prayers made in the writ petition as has been demonstrated by the documents.
The Court opined that the claims raised by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition cannot be gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition. The documents placed on record did not indicate any existence of the Beswan family or existence of any right of the petitioner. The judgments, extracts from Wikipedia report, documents of political integration of India, Instrument of Accession also did not substantiate the case of the Petitioner. Thus, the petition raised pure questions of facts and the petitioner was not able to establish the area under the control of the Beswan family and the right of the Petitioner to succeed to the Princely State of Beswan family.
The Court concluded that the writ courts cannot enter a field of investigation that is more appropriate for the Civil Court in a properly contested suit. Questions of fact that require determination, where rival claims of the parties must be decided, which are purely factual, can be adjudicated in a properly instituted suit and the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the proper remedy, thus, the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and a complete waste of judicial time.
[Kunwar Mahender Dhwaj Pratap Singh v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8070, decided on 18-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. M L Sharma, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr.Kamal Digpaul, Ms. Swati Kwatra, Advocates for respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
