Today, On 15th May, In the Shahi Idgah row, Hindu parties accused the Sunni Waqf Board of committing ‘fraud’ in 1968. They allege that the board misrepresented facts regarding the ownership of the disputed land. This accusation adds a new dimension to the longstanding dispute over the ownership of the Shahi Idgah complex.
Prayagraj: During the hearing of the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute, the Hindu side argued before the Allahabad High Court that the 1968 compromise claimed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the mosque committee fraudulent. They asserted that the Katra Keshav Deo deity owned the property for over 1,000 years, and that Lord Krishna‘s birthplace demolished in the 16th century to construct an Idgah platform.
These arguments presented in a plea challenging the suit which seeks the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura. Justice Mayank Kumar Jain hearing the case, which brought by the Muslim side to challenge the suit’s maintainability.
Read Also: Hindu Side vs. Allahabad HC: The Impact of Waqf Board on Shahi Idgah Dispute
She also noted that the suit calls for possession after the Idgah’s removal and temple restoration, indicating the mosque committee’s current possession.
The Hindu side countered that the suit is maintainable, and questions of maintainability should be resolved through evidence. They sought the rejection of the Muslim side’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which challenges the suit’s maintainability.
They argued,
“The deity was not involved in the 1968 compromise or the 1974 court decree, and that the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which made the compromise, lacked the authority to do so as it was only meant to manage temple activities.”
The hearing set to continue on Thursday.
Read Also: Shahi Idgah Dispute||Muslim Objections to ‘Krishna Koop’ Worship Plea in Mathura
The ‘1968 compromise’ refers to an agreement ostensibly reached to settle disputes over the land on which the Shahi Idgah Mosque built. According to the Hindu parties, this agreement allowed the mosque to remain on its current site, adjacent to the birthplace of Lord Krishna, under specific conditions. The Hindu groups now contesting the validity of this compromise, claiming it unilaterally decided and misrepresented by the Sunni Waqf Board, thus lacking legitimate consensus and transparency.
As the High Court hears this case, it expected to delve into the historical documents, the legality of the 1968 agreement, and the intentions behind it. The outcome could have broader implications for the management of religious sites and communal harmony in the region.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
