In the ongoing Budaun temple-mosque dispute involving the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple and Shamsi Jama Masjid, the local court has rescheduled the hearing to July 5, extending the wait for a crucial legal decision.
A court in Budaun has scheduled a hearing for the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple-Shamsi Jama Masjid dispute on July 5.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Suman Tiwari was unable to conduct the hearing due to the absence of advocate Asrar Ahmed, representing the Shamsi Jama Masjid Intezamia Committee, who is currently on Haj.
Judge Tiwari has instructed both parties to be present in court for the upcoming hearing.
Advocate Ved Prakash Sahu, representing the Neelkanth Temple, noted that the case file has been transferred from the fast track court to the Civil Judge’s court. In the previous hearing on April 21, Civil Judge Pushpendra Chaudhary stated that he would review the case file before taking further action.
The litigation originates from a claim made in 2022 by Mukesh Patel, the then convenor of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, who asserted that the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple was located at the site of the Jama Masjid Shamsi and sought permission to worship within the structure.
Also Read: Budaun Temple-Mosque Dispute || Court Postpones Hearing to April 2
In 2022, Mukesh Patel, then convener of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, claimed that the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple was located at the site of the Jama Masjid Shamsi mosque and sought permission to worship there, which led to the ongoing litigation.
The Budaun temple-mosque dispute revolves around the Jama Masjid Shamsi, an 800-year-old mosque in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, which was established during the reign of Sultan Iltutmish between 1210 and 1223.
In 2022, a Hindu organization filed a petition asserting that the mosque was built on the site of a demolished Hindu temple, specifically the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple, and requested permission to pray at the mosque.
In response, the Muslim parties have disputed these claims, emphasizing the mosque’s 850-year history and arguing that no temple existed at that site before the mosque was constructed.
They also cite the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which preserves the religious character of places of worship as it was on August 15, 1947, to argue against any change in the site’s status.