Allahabad high court to continue hearing on Apr 22
PRAYAGRAJ: In the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah title dispute case at Mathura, the Allahabad high court will continue to hear the matter on April 22, 2024.
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain is hearing the applications filed by the Muslim side on the maintainability of 18 consolidated suits seeking removal of Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura.
The suits, filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat and 17 others, claimed that the mosque has been built on 13.37 acres of land belonging to the Katra Keshav Deo temple.
Therefore, they are seeking the restoration of the temple at that location.
In a reply to the arguments raised by the Muslim side on the previous date, Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that the suit is maintainable. He argued that the plea regarding the application of the Places of Worship Act as well as the Waqf Act can only be determined by evidence presented by the parties in the suit and the same could not be decided while hearing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the maintainability of the suits.
Jain further contended that merely stating that a mosque now exists there did not invoke the Waqf Act. He said that the religious character of the property could not be changed merely by demolishing the same. He further submitted that it had to be seen and decided that whether alleged waqf deed is valid or not. If property was not a valid property of waqf, it would not be a valid waqf. All these things to be seen in trial and thus present suit was maintainable.
Regarding the question of limitation, he said that the present suit had been filed well within the time limit. The alleged compromise of 1968 came to the plaintiff’s knowledge in 2020, and within three years of acquiring this knowledge, the present suit had been initiated. He also mentioned that if the ‘Sibayat’ or trust was negligent and failed to perform its duty, the deity could step forward through a next friend and file a suit, and in such a case, the question of limitation did not arise.
Earlier, arguing on the application for rejection of the plaint, senior advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, the counsel for the Muslim side (UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and management committee of Shahi-Eidgah Masjid), submitted before the court that the suit was barred by limitation.
She argued that the parties had reached a compromise on
October 12, 1968, which was confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974. The limitation period to challenge a compromise was three years, so since the suit was filed in 2020, it was barred by limitation.
She further submitted that the prayer in the suit showed that the structure of the masjid (mosque) was there and the committee of management was in possession of the same, hence, a question/dispute has been raised on Waqf property, thus provisions of Waqf Act will apply and as such, it is the Waqf Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction to hear the matter and not a civil court like the present one.
Earlier, she had submitted before the court that the title suit was not maintainable as the same was barred by the provisions of Waqf Act as well as the Places of Worship Act 1991, which prohibited conversion of any place of worship and to provide for maintenance of religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.