Bansi Lal property row reaches HC

Chandigarh, Sep 15 (UNI) The legal battle enveloping the feuding factions of late Haryana chief minister Bansi Lal's family over the property today reached in the Punjab and Haryana High Court today when a joint petition was filed by his widow Vidya Devi and son Ranbir Singh Mahendra.

The petition sought directions against the diktat of the representatives of 108 villages asking the petitioners to accept Shruti, the grand daughter of the late leader as his legal heir within 10 days or get ready for reprisal including social boycott.

The petitioners, who are part of the newly constituted Bansi Lal Trust, contended that the decision of the representatives of the villages of Bhiwani district seemed to indicate they were acting like a parallel court, which could not be permitted by any stretch of imagination or law.

The counsel sought directions to the concerned authorities to ensure against any harm coming to them as their plea to the state Governor and the Chief Minister have failed to evoke any response.

The matter was also brought to the notice of the President of India and the Prime Minister.

It was also argued that Bansi Lal's property should go to the widow and not to the daughter-in-law as a trust had now been formed for this purpose by the petitioners. Such congregations and the decisions sought and dictated by them were without any authority nor these bodies have any rights, the counsel reiterated only to attract a crisp comment from the bench ''then why are you worried''.

''The division bench of Justices Viney Mittal and H S Bhalla, while declining to intervene, termed the tussle purely a ''dispute over money.'' When the counsel said an 82-year old widow was fighting for her rights, the bench retorted strongly, asking him not to make ''sentimental observations.'' is a money dispute pure and simple'' and it was for the civil court to adjudicate, the bench said.

The counsel submitted that the property matter was already before the civil judge, Bhiwani, who has ordered status quo, but the present petition arose from their right to life in the context of diktat to accept Shruti as the heir or face the consequences.

When the counsel again pointed out that in a similar case, the High Court had ordered the district administration to ensure protection of the petitioners, the bench said that was a matter of marriage and dispute over the Gotra' of the couple and thus not relevant to the present case.

The petition which was otherwise listed before the division bench of Justices Surinder Singh Nijjar and Surinder Singh Saron was specially taken for urgent hearing on orders of the acting Chief Justice Harjit Singh Bedi as Justice Nijjar was on leave and that bench was not holding court.

However, at the conclusion of preliminary hearing, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate legal remedy in the event of a situation so demanding.

UNI XC DP VD DB2110