17 June 2024


High Court of Delhi

Kunwar Mahender Dhwaj Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:9129)




Questions of title can be decided only in Civil Court and not in Writ Court

The Petitioner claims 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 has approached this Court by filing instant writ petition praying to direct the Union of India by appropriate 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.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Central Government and 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 Petitioner has filed only certain maps which do not indicate the existence of Beswan family. He has also filed certain articles which also do not throw any light on the existence of the Beswan family or that of the Petitioner having any right to succeed to the Princely State of Beswan family, if it existed. The judgments of the Privy Council only deals with the inter-party rights of one of the Petitioner and the applications filed by the Petitioner in this Court do 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.

It is well settled that questions of title can be decided only in Civil Court and not in Writ Court. It is also well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Courts do not enter into disputed questions of fact to enforce the right for which the writ is claimed.In Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Apex Court held that disputed question of title should not be entertained in a writ petition.

This Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is completely misconceived. The claims raised by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition cannot be gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition. The Petitioner has only filed some maps, historical accounts, which in the opinion of this Court does 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 do not substantiate the case of the Petitioner.

This Court is of the opinion that this Writ Petition raises pure questions of facts and the Petitioner has not been able to establish the area under the control of Beswan family and the right of the Petitioner succeeding to the Princely State of Beswan family. The Petitioner has to substantiate his contentions by taking appropriate proceedings, lead documentary and oral evidence and prove his case. Writ petition is not the remedy for the relief as claimed by the Petitioner.

Writ courts cannot enter into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for the Civil Court in a properly contested suit. Questions of fact which require determination, where rival claims of the parties have to 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. The present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and complete waste of judicial time. Petition dismissed.

Tags : Acquisition Compensation Remedy

Share :