On September 17, a Delhi court will rule on the maintainability of a motion asserting ownership of the property housing the Qutub Minar complex.
On Tuesday, Judge Dinesh Kumar stated that he will pronounce a ruling on the application on Saturday and would then determine whether to hold a hearing for the lawsuit that calls for the restoration of temples located inside the monument complex. The petitioner, Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh, had submitted an intervention action claiming ownership of the land through advocate ML Sharma.
I’m 78 now. 60-70 years I have been fighting. I still have the authority of being a sovereign king. Now the sovereignty was to be dominated to the Indian dominion but in my case it hasn’t been transferred (sic).
Singh addressed the court during Tuesday’s proceedings and remarked,
In addition, the applicant identified himself as the king of the united provinces of Agra dating back to the 16th century, with a claim extending from Meerut to Agra between the Yamuna and Ganga rivers.
I’m the lawful owner of this property right from that. In 1947, I was 3 years old. I was a minor child. After the government was formed in 1947, it encroached on the area without considering my right,
Singh stated
But the Court emphasised that the issue at hand had nothing to do with who owned the property. Lord Vishnu and Lord Rishabh Dev’s advocate, Hari Shankar Jain and Ranjana Agnihotri, filed the lawsuit on their behalf, asking for the reinstatement of the deities within the complex as well as the opportunity to perform puja and have a darshan of the deities.
The Quwwat-Ul-Islam mosque, which was designated a protected monument under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, was allegedly constructed after these temples were destroyed, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was dismissed by a civil judge on the grounds that the past wrongs could not be the reason for upsetting the peace in the present and the future.
It had argued that while ancient and historical monuments can always be utilised for other purposes that are consistent with their religious character, they cannot be used for purposes that are in conflict with their nature as places of worship. Through the use of the current plea, the same has been contested.
The intervention application was rejected by the appellant’s advocate, who is appealing the civil court’s order from December 2021.
There is no question of possession. The value of the suit property is more than ₹2 crore so this is not the correct territorial jurisdiction anyways. This is a publicity stunt and nothing else. Application should be dismissed with heavy costs.
The applicant has no locus standi. He has not made any submission saying he has the right to be impleaded by relying on the judgement, which was passed previously by the civil court (under challenge before the present judge). He was not a party to that,
Defending the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), advocate SC Gupta claimed,
The ASI had previously stated that the applicant had asserted rights over sizable and extensive regions in multiple states and had been dormant on that claim for the previous 150 years without bringing the matter before a court.
