Delhi HC trashes plea seeking possession of Red Fort by ‘Mughal family member’

New Delhi, Dec 13 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea in which a woman claiming to be the widow of the great-grandson of Bahadur Shah Zafar II from the Mughal dynasty sought possession of the Red Fort in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela refused to entertain the appeal moved by the woman challenging the 2021 decision of the single-judge bench which had rejected her petition.

Without entering into the merits of the case, ACJ Bakhru-led Bench rejected the matter on delay in filing the appeal.

It opined that the delay spanning over two-and-a-half year should not be condoned.

According to the plea, their family property was taken away by the British East India Company following the first War of Independence in 1857, after which the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled from the country and possession of the Red Fort was taken away from the Mughals.

The petitioner woman sought possession of the Red Fort or adequate compensation from 1857 till date for 'illegal possession' by the government or any other relief deemed fit.

In the course of hearing, a single-judge bench of Justice Rekha Palli had said: "My history is very weak, but you claim injustice was done to you by the British East India Company in 1857. Why is there a delay of over 150 years? What were you doing for all these years?"

Justice Palli also noted that there was no documentary evidence to support the claim that the petitioner was related to the last Mughal emperor.

“You have not filed any inheritance chart. Everyone knows Bahadur Shah Zafar was exiled by the British, but if his heirs did not file any plea can she do it?" the Delhi HC had asked.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel said that Begum was an illiterate woman.

However, the court had rejected the petition saying merely because the petitioner is an illiterate woman there is no reason why, if the petitioner's predecessors were aggrieved by any action of the East India Company, no steps were taken in this regard at the relevant time or soon thereafter.

Source: IANS