The order on maintainability of a plea claiming ownership of the land housing the Qutub Minar complex will be pronounced by a Delhi court on September 17. .Judge Dinesh Kumar said on Tuesday he will be pronouncing the order on the application on Saturday and accordingly decide on the hearing of the suit that claims restoration of temples inside the monument complex. Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh, the applicant through advocate ML Sharma, had filed an intervention application claiming ownership of the property.During Tuesday's arguments Singh addressed the court and said, "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).".The applicant also called himself the ruler of the united provinces of Agra from the 16th century, who has a claim from Meerut to Agra between Yamuna and Ganga. "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," asserted Singh..The Court, however, pointed out that the question before it did not pertain to the ownership of the property. "Lis before the court is not about deciding the ownership of the property," it pointed out..The intervention application was moved in a suit filed on behalf of deities Lord Vishnu and Lord Rishabh Dev through advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Ranjana Agnihotri seeking restoration of deities within the complex and the right to do puja and darshan of the deities.The suit alleged that the Quwwat-Ul-Islam mosque, which was declared a protected monument under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act was built after destroying these temples.A civil judge had dismissed the suit holding that past wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future.It had held 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 same has been challenged by way of the present plea. .The counsel for the appellant, who has challenged the order passed in December 2021 by the civil court opposed the intervention application. "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." .Advocate SC Gupta, representing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), said, "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," he said.The ASI earlier argued that the applicant had claimed rights for large and vast areas in several states and was sitting idle on it for the last 150 years without raising issue before any court.
The order on maintainability of a plea claiming ownership of the land housing the Qutub Minar complex will be pronounced by a Delhi court on September 17. .Judge Dinesh Kumar said on Tuesday he will be pronouncing the order on the application on Saturday and accordingly decide on the hearing of the suit that claims restoration of temples inside the monument complex. Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh, the applicant through advocate ML Sharma, had filed an intervention application claiming ownership of the property.During Tuesday's arguments Singh addressed the court and said, "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).".The applicant also called himself the ruler of the united provinces of Agra from the 16th century, who has a claim from Meerut to Agra between Yamuna and Ganga. "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," asserted Singh..The Court, however, pointed out that the question before it did not pertain to the ownership of the property. "Lis before the court is not about deciding the ownership of the property," it pointed out..The intervention application was moved in a suit filed on behalf of deities Lord Vishnu and Lord Rishabh Dev through advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Ranjana Agnihotri seeking restoration of deities within the complex and the right to do puja and darshan of the deities.The suit alleged that the Quwwat-Ul-Islam mosque, which was declared a protected monument under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act was built after destroying these temples.A civil judge had dismissed the suit holding that past wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future.It had held 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 same has been challenged by way of the present plea. .The counsel for the appellant, who has challenged the order passed in December 2021 by the civil court opposed the intervention application. "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." .Advocate SC Gupta, representing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), said, "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," he said.The ASI earlier argued that the applicant had claimed rights for large and vast areas in several states and was sitting idle on it for the last 150 years without raising issue before any court.
