Disputed Claims of Title and Factual Issues Not Decidable in Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court - 2025-04-27

Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Claiming Rights Over Vast 'Princely State' Territory

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner claiming to be the successor and ruler of the ' Beswan Avibhajya Rajya,' a purported princely state encompassing vast territories in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttarakhand. The court held that such claims involving disputed questions of fact and title cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, terming the petition an "abuse of the process of law."

The judgment was delivered by the bench of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD on December 18, 2023 .

The petitioner, Kunwar Mahender Dhwaj Prasad Singh, claimed lineage to the Beswan family and asserted property rights over territories described as the "United Province of Agra running between river Yamuna and Ganga from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahar including 65 revenue estates of Delhi Gurgaon and Uttarakhand."

Among the extensive reliefs sought, the petitioner prayed for directions to the Union of India to enter into a merger, accession, or treaty process, acquire his claimed territories with compensation, halt elections and revenue collection within these areas without due process, assess past revenue collected since 1950 for payment to him, and prevent construction or third-party interest creation on the land.

The petitioner contended that his forefathers did not accede to the Union of India during the political integration of 1947-48, leaving the Beswan Avibhajya Rajya with the status of an independent princely state. He relied on genealogy and certain historical documents, including a repealed 1923 Act and a withdrawn 1924 Sanad, as well as Privy Council judgments concerning inter-family disputes from 1900.

The Union of India, represented by Mr. Ajay Digpaul , CGSC, opposed the plea.

The Court, after hearing arguments, found the writ petition "completely misconceived." Justice Prasad noted that the petitioner had filed only some maps and historical accounts which "do not indicate the existence of Beswan family or that of the Petitioner having any right to succeed to the Princely State of Beswan family, if it existed." The court also observed that the judgments, Wikipedia extracts, and documents of political integration did not substantiate the petitioner's case.

Crucially, the Court reiterated the well-settled legal principle that questions of title can only be decided in a Civil Court and not in Writ Court. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, courts do not enter into disputed questions of fact to enforce rights.

Citing established precedents, including Sohan Lal vs. Union of India (1957) , Thansingh Nathmal vs. Supdt. of Taxes (1964) , State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh (1993) , and Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) , the Court emphasized that writ petitions are not the appropriate forum for adjudicating complex factual disputes requiring the leading of documentary and oral evidence.

The judgment highlighted that the petition raised "pure questions of facts" and the petitioner failed to establish the existence of the claimed territory under the Beswan family's control or his right to succeed to a princely state.

The Court concluded that the present writ petition was "nothing but an abuse of the process of law and complete waste of judicial time."

Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, W.P.(C) 11198/2023, along with the pending application, and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner, directing the amount to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court observed that the petitioner had also filed several other litigations in Uttar Pradesh courts regarding similar land claims, dating back to 1962.