Court Fines Man Rs 1 Lakh For Claiming Ownership Of Land Between Yamuna And Ganga
On Thursday, a Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected Kunwar Singh 's appeal due to considerable delay in submitting the petition.
The Bench noted that Kunwar Singh's plea was clearly hindered by the delay and inaction, as well as the principle of extinguishment, since the petition was filed more than seven decades after India gained independence.
Kunwar Singh, asserting his status as a successor and heir of the Beswan family , had petitioned the court to direct the Union government to refrain from conducting elections in the territories he claimed, unless proper legal procedures were followed.
The single judge concluded that the writ petition was "completely misconceived" and judged the claims raised as unsuitable for resolution through a writ petition.
Justice Prasad observed that Kunwar Singh's submission lacked significant evidence, such as maps, and historical records did not support the existence of the Beswan family or Kunwar Singh's rights.
Likewise, the Division Bench agreed with Justice Prasad's decision that Kunwar Singh's claim, centered on factual inquiries concerning ownership of a vast area between the Yamuna and Ganga rivers, could not be resolved through writ proceedings due to the substantial time that had passed since the issue arose in 1947.
The Bench commented on the unlikelihood of addressing such a claim after such a long period, questioning the foundation of Kunwar Singh's ownership assertion following a delay of more than 75 years.
“You say you own the entire area between Yamuna and Ganga. On what basis are you coming? After 75 years you have woken up,” the Bench remarked.
It added, “The grievance arose in 1947. Isn't it too late in the day to contest this? This is 1947 and we are in 2024. Many years have gone by. Whether you're the raja or not, we don't know. You can't complain today that you've been deprived in 1947.”
“We cannot help you with this now. This is too late in the day. How do we know you're the owner? We don't have the papers. This is all barred by delay and laches. You file a suit, claim a declaration. We don't know. How can it be now?,” the court said.
Justice Prasad declared that the writ petition constituted an abuse of the legal process and a squandering of judicial time.
Subsequently, the court instructed Kunwar Singh to deposit the incurred costs with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks.
Justice Prasad advised Kunwar Singh to pursue suitable legal avenues, utilizing documentary and oral evidence to support his claims.
The court clarified that writ petitions were not suitable for resolving factual disputes that necessitate a proper contested suit in a civil court.
The Bench noted that Kunwar Singh's plea was clearly hindered by the delay and inaction, as well as the principle of extinguishment, since the petition was filed more than seven decades after India gained independence.
Kunwar Singh, asserting his status as a successor and heir of the Beswan family , had petitioned the court to direct the Union government to refrain from conducting elections in the territories he claimed, unless proper legal procedures were followed.
The single judge concluded that the writ petition was "completely misconceived" and judged the claims raised as unsuitable for resolution through a writ petition.
Justice Prasad observed that Kunwar Singh's submission lacked significant evidence, such as maps, and historical records did not support the existence of the Beswan family or Kunwar Singh's rights.
Likewise, the Division Bench agreed with Justice Prasad's decision that Kunwar Singh's claim, centered on factual inquiries concerning ownership of a vast area between the Yamuna and Ganga rivers, could not be resolved through writ proceedings due to the substantial time that had passed since the issue arose in 1947.
The Bench commented on the unlikelihood of addressing such a claim after such a long period, questioning the foundation of Kunwar Singh's ownership assertion following a delay of more than 75 years.
“You say you own the entire area between Yamuna and Ganga. On what basis are you coming? After 75 years you have woken up,” the Bench remarked.
It added, “The grievance arose in 1947. Isn't it too late in the day to contest this? This is 1947 and we are in 2024. Many years have gone by. Whether you're the raja or not, we don't know. You can't complain today that you've been deprived in 1947.”
“We cannot help you with this now. This is too late in the day. How do we know you're the owner? We don't have the papers. This is all barred by delay and laches. You file a suit, claim a declaration. We don't know. How can it be now?,” the court said.
Justice Prasad declared that the writ petition constituted an abuse of the legal process and a squandering of judicial time.
Subsequently, the court instructed Kunwar Singh to deposit the incurred costs with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks.
Justice Prasad advised Kunwar Singh to pursue suitable legal avenues, utilizing documentary and oral evidence to support his claims.
The court clarified that writ petitions were not suitable for resolving factual disputes that necessitate a proper contested suit in a civil court.
Next Story