E-Paper
Mathura courts reopen today, focus on Krishna Janmabhoomi cases
These suits are filed on behalf of the deity (Lord Krishna), seeking removal of Shahi Eidgah (mosque), adjacent the Krishna temple complex in Mathura, and transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity.
AGRA Focus will be on over half a dozen cases related to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi that will be heard in the court of civil judge (senior division) in Mathura on July 1 (Friday), when courts here reopen after the summer vacation. Sensitive applications, including the one seeking a survey and videography at Shahi Eidgah Masjid, are listed for hearing.
These suits are filed on behalf of the deity (Lord Krishna), seeking removal of Shahi Eidgah (mosque), adjacent the Krishna temple complex in Mathura, and transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity.
The applications moved in May seek appointment of advocate commissioner for survey, photography and videography within the Shahi Eidgah mosque, sealing of mosque premises, enhancement of security, purification of mosque premises (claimed as original birth place of Lord Krishna) by ‘Gangajal’ and offering water to ‘Laddoo Gopal’ on the mosque premises.
Most of these petitioners claim that the actual birthplace of Lord Krishna (Garbh Grah) is within the walls of the present-day structure of Shahi Eidgah Mosque and there are marks and symbols, proving that it was a Hindu temple in the past.
According to the petitioners, there are material evidences, which Muslim parties might damage, remove or conceal, hence the applications.
These cases include the first case filed by Ranjana Agnihotri and others on Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi issue on September 25, 2020. It was dismissed on September 30, 2020. The case was restored on May 19 this year and is now to be taken up in the court of civil judge (senior division) on Friday.
Mahendra Pratap Singh, one of the litigants and a lawyer in Mathura court, is all prepared for the hearing.
“Our pending applications to be taken up on Friday include the one for the appointment of court commission, which should visit Shahi Eidgah mosque and conduct videography and photography. We have also sought scientific excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), maintaining of status quo and appointment of receiver for Shahi Eidgah mosque through different applications to be heard on July 1,” stated Singh.
Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha national treasurer Dinesh Sharma, Hindu Army chief Manish Yadav, Jitendra Singh Bishen, Anil Kumar Tripathi, Pawan Kumar Shastri, Gopal Giri and Pankaj Singh are the other petitioners in these cases.
Tanveer Ahmed, lawyer and secretary for the management committee of Shahi Eidgah mosque, too was all set for the day and was not worried about the number of applications to be taken up in different cases.
“Most of the applications were filed without providing us the copy as required by law. The applications will be suitably replied and contested,” he stated.
Since September 2020, a dozen cases have been filed in Mathura courts in connection with the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute. The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, management committee of Shahi Eidgah mosque, Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and Sri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sansthan are parties in most of these cases.
The petitioners in the cases have challenged the settlement (dated October 12, 1968) between the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and Shahi Masjid Eidgah, which was part of suit no. 43 of 1967. They alleged that the settlement had no legal validity because the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust, having ownership and title, was not party to it and sought an order on transfer of the Eidgah mosque land to the deity.
The petitioners in these cases alleged that the Shahi Eidgah mosque was built on the same spot where a temple was razed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century.
However, the management committee of Shahi Eidgah mosque objected to the petitions, claiming they were filed after a long delay as the settlement was in 1968 while the judgment and decree in case no. 43 of 1967 were passed in 1974. The management committee of the mosque had challenged the maintainability of these suits and prayed for their dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The Muslim side challenged the maintainability of the ongoing suit on the plea based on the provision laid in the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
