Prayagraj. The Allahabad High Court on Friday reserved its decision on whether or not to consider (maintainability) various petitions related to the ‘Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute’ in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Justice Mayank Kumar Jain is hearing the maintainability of various petitions. This dispute is related to the Shahi Idgah Mosque established in Mathura during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, which was built after demolishing a temple allegedly at the birthplace of Lord Shri Krishna.
Earlier on Thursday, advocate Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, on behalf of the Muslim side, told the Allahabad High Court that these suits are prohibited under the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and some other laws. Ahmadi also argued that these suits have been filed to take possession and restore the temple after the demolition of the structure of Shahi Idgah Mosque. It has also been said in the argument that the request made in the suit shows that the structure of the mosque is present there and its possession is with the management committee.
He said, “In this way, a question/dispute has been raised on the Waqf property and hence the provisions of the Waqf Act will apply here. Accordingly, the Waqf Tribunal has the right to hear this case and not the civil court.” On the other hand, the advocates of the Hindu side opposed these arguments saying that whatever argument is being given here has been given many times before and there is nothing new in it, rather it is a waste of the court’s time.
Earlier during the hearing, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board had said that on October 12, 1968, an agreement was signed between the Hindu side and the Waqf Board, through which the disputed property was handed over to Shahi Idgah. The Waqf Board’s lawyer had said that this agreement has also been confirmed in a civil suit decided in the year 1974. Since there were many cases going on between the two parties, they decided to compromise and since then people of the Muslim community are offering namaz there.
Objecting to the Sunni Waqf Board’s argument, the Hindu side’s lawyer had said that the Muslim side’s own statement is that the agreement included the Waqf Board and the tenants of Shahi Idgah, which shows that the signatories were not the owners of the property but they were tenants. He said that this property belongs to Lord Shri Keshav Dev Virajman, Katra Keshav Dev and the Janm Sansthan had no right to enter into the agreement. The purpose of the Sansthan was only to manage the daily activities.