Today, On 15th May, The Shahi Idgah dispute took on a new dimension as Hindu parties accused the Sunni Waqf Board of fraudulent representation in a 1968 compromise. They contested the ownership of the disputed land and raised questions about the mosque committee’s authority. The case’s outcome could have far-reaching implications for religious site management and communal harmony.
![[Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute] Temple is a Protected Monument Under 1958 Act, Hindu Side Tells HC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-35.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Hindu side asserts that the deity was not involved in the compromise or court decree in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at the Allahabad High Court. They argue against the applicability of the Waqf Act and emphasize the property’s historical and religious significance. The legal battle continues.
The counsel for the Shahi Idgah managing committee argued in the Allahabad High Court today that the suit seeking the removal of the mosque is constrained by the statute of limitations. The Muslim side cited a compromise dating back to 1968, stating the suit filed in 2020 is beyond the three-year limit to challenge a compromise. The High Court set March 13 as the next hearing date. The case involves a dispute over Waqf property. The Waqf Act allows the Waqf Boards in India to claim unlimited powers over properties without recourse to legal challenge, raising questions in the context of a secular country. Waqf Board holds over 8,54,509 properties encompassing more than eight lakh acres of land, with powers to acquire and declare ownership without need for proof. The controversy surrounding the Waqf Act and the dispute over the mosque illustrates the complexities of religious property laws in India, provoking debate about the Act’s constitutionality.
A civil suit involving a Hindu temple near the Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow has advanced following the dismissal of a revision plea. The suit seeks the right of worship at Laxman Teela and addresses the historical damage to the site during Aurangzeb’s reign. The ruling allows the suit to proceed, determining the plaintiffs’ right to uninterrupted worship.