The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Rekha Palli dismissed a plea filed by one Sultana Begum, seeking possession of Red Fort, claiming herself to be the widow of the great grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II. (Sultana Begum v. Union of India & Others)
The bench dismissed the petition on the ground of there being an inordinate delay in approaching the Court.
Facts of the case
The petitioner(Sultana Begum) in the present case alleged that its possession was taken away from her forcibly, by the British East India Company in 1857.
The petitioner has filed the present petition through advocate Vivek More. She claimed that she was the widow of the great-grandson of Bahadur Shah Zafar II.
It was argued that her family had been deprived of their property by the British East India Company following the first war of Independence in 1857, after which Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled from the country and possession of the Red Fort was taken away from the Mughals.
The plea also sought directions on the respondent authorities to grant her compensation from the year 1857 till date for the alleged illegal possession by the Government of India.
Court's observations and Judgment
The Court told the counsel appearing for the petitioner, "The unfortunate part is you have made a petition without even trying to make out a case. Your petition itself says 1857 this happened, in 1947 this happened. That's all. You're not even trying to say anything that you have a grievance."
The bench asking the petitioner's counsel about the period of limitation in cases of adverse possession, said, "Everybody knew about it. Everybody in the Court must have read this history that he was trying to exile. It was known to the world. Why was nothing filed in time? If her ancestors didn't do it, can she do it now?"
Thd Court during the course of the hearing, noted that while it was put to the petitioner's counsel that even if Begum's case was to be accepted- that late Bahadur Shah Zafar was illegally deprived of property by the East India Company- there was no justification as to why the petition must not be dismissed on account of there being gross delay and laches as admittedly her predecessors were aware of the purported illegality.
The petitioner’s counsel sought to justify the delay by stating that Begum was an illiterate woman. The Court however rejected the argument and said there was no justification for why steps were not taken on time.
The Court noted, "In my view, merely because the petitioner is an illiterate woman there is no reason as to why, if the petitioner's predecessor were aggrieved by any action of East India Company, no steps were taken in this regard on relevant time or soon thereafter."
The bench further added, "Petitioner has not been able to give any justifiable explanation for the delay. This Court is not examining the merits of the petition."
The petition was, therefore, dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
