Hindu representatives reported missing property documents related to the Shahi Idgah dispute to the High Court. This development adds complexity to the ongoing legal battle over the contested site. The missing documents could potentially impact the case’s proceedings and require thorough investigation to ascertain their significance.
![[Freedom of Speech] Are Government Servants Allowed to Speak to the media? Allahabad HC Asks State Gov.](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/hc-1.jpg?resize=820%2C547&ssl=1)
Prayagraj: In the ongoing Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case before the Allahabad High Court, the Hindu side argued that the Waqf Board and mosque committee have not provided any documentation to establish their ownership over the disputed property.
The Hindu counsel further contended,
“The electricity connection for the property is not in the name of the Waqf Board or mosque committee, suggesting they are using power illegally. “
The counsel stated that an FIR filed against them by the electricity department.
Read Also: Hindu Side vs. Allahabad HC: The Impact of Waqf Board on Shahi Idgah Dispute
These submissions made during the hearing of a plea challenging the suit seeking the ‘removal‘ of the Shahi Idgah mosque adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura.
Earlier, the Hindu side argued that the claimed ‘1968 compromise‘ between the two sides a ‘fraud’ by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the mosque committee. They asserted that the property belongs to the deity Katra Keshav Deo for over 1,000 years, and that the birthplace of Lord Krishna demolished in the 16th century, with a ‘chabutara’ (platform) constructed as the Idgah.
On the other hand, the Muslim side’s counsel contended that the suit is barred by limitation, as the two parties had entered into a ‘compromise’ in 1968, which later confirmed in a civil suit in 1974.
The High Court scheduled the next hearing in the case for May 20
Ahmadi stated,
“The limitation period to challenge a compromise is three years. However, since the current suit was filed in 2020, it is barred by limitation.”
The plaintiff asserted that the lawsuit aims to secure possession following the removal of the Shahi Idgah structure and seeks the restoration of a temple.
Ahmadi contended that the prayer in the lawsuit indicates the presence of the Idgah structure, with the mosque management committee currently in possession of it.
The Hindu party previously argued that the lawsuit valid and any claims of non-maintainability should be determined after presenting evidence. They opposed the Muslim party‘s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, asserting that it should be dismissed.
Furthermore, the Hindu counsel contended that the deity not involved in the purported compromise of 1968 or the court decree of 1974.
They also argued that the deity, not a participant in the alleged compromise between the two parties in 1968 or in the court decree issued in 1974.
The counsel representing the Hindu side further remarked,
“The asserted compromise was allegedly made by Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, a body not authorized to enter into such agreement”
As the legal battle over the Shahi Idgah dispute continues to unfold, the revelation of missing property documents adds another layer of complexity to an already complex case. The HC’s response and subsequent actions will be closely watched by both parties and stakeholders invested in the resolution of this longstanding dispute.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
