In the Krishna Janmbhoomi-Idgah suit, the Hindu side contends that the mere presence of a mosque on the property does not automatically invoke the application of the Waqf Act. They argue against the assumption of Waqf status, challenging the mosque’s claim over the land.
![[Krishna Janmbhoomi-Idgah Suit] Hindu Claim Mere Presence of a Mosque on the Property Does not Invoke Waqf Act](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-43.png?resize=800%2C420&ssl=1)
Prayagraj: On Monday (April 22): In the Krishna Janmbhoomi and Shahi Eidgah dispute, the Hindu side presented a strong counter-argument in the Allahabad High Court. Responding to the Muslim side’s contention that the property is a Waqf (endowment) property, the Hindu counsel emphasized that the land in question was originally a temple and its nature cannot be changed by the act of forcefully taking possession and conducting religious practices.
The counsel representing the Hindu side argued,
“The property under dispute is not a Waqf property, and therefore, the Waqf Act does not apply to it. Merely offering Namaz does not alter the fundamental character of the land.”
Furthermore, the counsel asserted
since it is not a Waqf property, the court has the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case.
Challenging the maintainability of the suit, the Muslim side claimed that the disputed Shahi Idgah Masjid is a Waqf property, and therefore, the jurisdiction to hear the matter lies solely with the Waqf Tribunal. They argued that the civil court does not have the authority to adjudicate on the case.
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, presiding over the petitions regarding the maintainability of the suit, scheduled the next hearing for April 30.
In response to the arguments presented by the Muslim side, the Hindu side contended that the suit is indeed maintainable and that the question of non-maintainability can only be determined after the presentation of evidence.
The counsel submitted,
“The applicability of the Places of Worship Act and the Waqf Act can only be ascertained through evidence presented by the parties involved. Such matters cannot be decided when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.”
During earlier proceedings, Vishnu Jain, representing the Hindu side, emphasized that
“Mere presence of a mosque on the property does not automatically invoke the application of the Waqf Act.
He further argued that the validity of the alleged Waqf deed needs to be examined and determined.
“If the property is not validly designated as a Waqf property, it cannot be considered a legitimate Waqf. These crucial aspects will be examined during the trial, affirming the maintainability of the present suit,” he stated.
Background
On a previous date of hearing, the Supreme Court ordered the continuation of the interim stay on the operation of the Allahabad High Court order, which had allowed a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah Mosque complex. The Supreme Court had also stayed the High Court’s order to appoint a court commissioner to oversee the survey of the mosque premises. The Hindu side claimed that the mosque premises showed signs suggesting it was once a temple.
The current Special Leave Petition was filed by the Shahi Masjid Idgah, challenging the aforementioned order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The petition raised legal issues and questioned the “vague” application made before the High Court for the appointment of a court commissioner for the survey.
The Supreme Court observed that legal issues needed consideration, including a reference to the judgment passed by the Court in Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013, titled “Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.” The proceedings before the High Court would continue, but the commission would not be executed until the next date of hearing.
In March, the Supreme Court disposed of a fresh plea challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order to consolidate 15 suits related to the dispute. The High Court had allowed the application filed by the deity (Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman) and seven others under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. It also appointed a commission consisting of three advocates, ensuring that the report’s effect on the case’s merits is clarified.
The court may issue directions to maintain the property’s sanctity during the commission’s execution. The application filed in the pending suit before the High Court emphasized that Lord Sri Krishna’s birthplace is situated beneath the Mosque, presenting various indications supporting the claim that the Mosque was originally a Hindu temple.
In September 2023, the Shri Krishna Janambhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust filed a Special Leave Petition challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court. The order had refused to direct the trial court to decide on an application for a scientific survey of Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Masjid Eidgah premises before disposing of objections raised by the management committee of the mosque and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board.
READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON KRISHNA JANMABHOOMI CASE
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
