Senior advocate Manish Goyal has been appointed as amicus curiae in the matter. The Hindu plaintiffs also argued that the Shahi Idgah property is not listed in government records and has been occupied illegally.
![[Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute] Allahabad HC Reserves Order on Maintainability of suits](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.png?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
Prayagraj: On June 6th: The Allahabad High Court reserved its verdict on a petition challenging the maintainability of suits filed regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute in Mathura.
READ ALSO: Krishna Janmabhoomi Case: Supreme Court Reminds Allahabad HC on Pending Suits
Several suits have been filed seeking the “removal” of the Shahi Idgah mosque, which is adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple. The litigants claim that the mosque, built during Aurangzeb’s era, stands on the site of a demolished temple.
The mosque management committee has challenged these suits. The Muslim side, represented by the mosque management committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, argues that the suits are barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. They assert that the suits themselves acknowledge the mosque was constructed in 1669-70.
The Hindu plaintiffs seek the “removal” of the Shahi Idgah mosque from the 13.37-acre complex it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple, along with possession of the mosque premises.
On May 31, the High Court reserved its judgment after extensive hearings from both sides. However, it reopened the hearing at the request of Shahi Idgah counsel Mehmood Pracha. On Thursday, Pracha made several submissions:
- Firstly, he affirmed that arguments on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), presented by Taslima Aziz Ahmadi for the Muslim side, have concluded.
- Later, he requested that his right to an audience be protected and that videography of future court proceedings be conducted.
- He argued that, since the dispute is between plaintiffs and defendants, the court should not appoint any amicus curiae.
The court accepted Pracha’s first request and reserved its judgment on the maintainability of the suits. The other two issues will be addressed after the maintainability order is pronounced.
Senior advocate Manish Goyal has been appointed as amicus curiae in the matter. The Hindu plaintiffs also argued that the Shahi Idgah property is not listed in government records and has been occupied illegally.
Background
The matter followed a 1968 agreement between the Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the mosque’s management, which settled the land dispute between them. Advocate Ahmadi mentioned that it’s too late for this agreement now, and even in the worst-case scenario where the mosque was built after 1968, time limits would prevent the lawsuit from proceeding.
The lawsuit also revisits historical claims that the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb destroyed a temple to build the mosque in 1669. Ahmadi argues that this point itself proves the mosque’s existence beyond that date, limiting legal action due to time constraints.
Furthermore, the legal challenge includes debates over the Places of Worship Act, with some plaintiffs arguing against its constitutionality. However, Ahmadi maintains that constitutional issues cannot be introduced in private legal disputes and that only those who possess property can seek legal protection for it.
As the court postpones further discussions, the legal and historical complexities of the dispute between Krishna Janmabhumi and Shahi Eidgah Mosque are becoming more evident.
During the proceedings, Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, the counsel representing the Muslim Community, presented her arguments via video conference, claiming that the suit is time-barred.
They further asserted that the suit was filed to obtain possession of the land after the “removal” of the Shahi Idgah mosque and to restore the Katra Keshav Deo temple, as well as to seek a permanent injunction.
The plea in the suit acknowledges the existence of the mosque structure and states that the committee of management is currently in possession of it.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
