Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | Allahabad HC Grants Masjid Committee Another Chance To Oppose Maintainability Of 18 Suits, Hearing On June 4

The Court made the decision after the Masjid Committee (through Advocate Mehmood Pracha) filed an application, praying that Advocate Pracha's right to an audience would not be obstructed in any manner.

Though the Court had reserved its verdict in the matter in the open court after the conclusion of arguments on May 31, a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain has now posted the matter for hearing on June 4.

The single judge, however, highlighted that Advocate Pracha remained present through Videoconferencing on several occasions and was also present in person before the Court. He had ample opportunity to argue the matter.

The Court also observed that the right of audience to any of the counsels who desired to appear and argue the matter through Video Conferencing was “never obstructed” as the entire hearing, which commenced on February 22, was conducted in the presence of the parties to the Suits as well as their respective counsels.

However, "in view of the phrase 'justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done' and in order to do complete justice in the matter", the Court decided to provide an opportunity for Advocate Pracha to address the Court through Video Conferencing.

The Court, however, made it clear that no further opportunity shall be accorded for any reason whatsoever.

The matters before the Court

It may be noted that 18 suits are pending before the Court containing a common prayer seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque from the 13.37-acre complex it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple in Mathura. Additional prayers include seeking possession of the Shahi Idgah premises and demolition of the present structure.

The Court is presently dealing with the Masjid committee's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC challenging the maintainability of these suits.

Before the Court, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura) primarily argued that the suits pending before the HC are barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963.

Appearing for the Mosque committee, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi contended that in the majority of the suits pending before the HC, the plaintiffs are seeking the right to the title of the land, which was the subject matter of a compromise arrived at in 1968 between Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah, dividing the disputed land and asking the 2 groups to stay away from each other's areas (within the 13.37-acre complex), however, the suits are specifically barred by law (the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963 as well as the Specific Relief Act 1963).

On the other hand, the Hindu plaintiffs argued that no property in the name of Shahi Idgah is in the government records, and the same is occupied illegally. It was also said that if the said property is a Waqf property, then the Waqf Board should tell who donated the disputed property. It was also argued that the Acts of Worship Act, Limitation Act, and Waqf Act are not applicable in this case.

Masjid committee has strongly contended that whosoever objects to the character of a Waqf Property (whether or not Shahi Idgah Mosque is so) has to be decided by the Waqf Tribunal, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred by law.

In its application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) [for rejection of plaint] r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Shahi Masjid Idgah Committee argued that the suits pending before the High Court admit that a Mosque existed after 1968.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs have argued that it is Waqf's nature to encroach on any property, change its nature, and convert it into Waqf property without ownership, and this kind of practice cannot be allowed. It has also been argued that the provisions of the Waqf Act will not apply in this case because the disputed property is not Waqf property.

It was also argued that the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1958 provisions apply to the entire portion of the disputed property. Its notification was issued on 26 February 1920, and now the provisions of Waqf will not apply to this property.

Hindu plaintiffs were represented by Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shanker Jain, Reena N Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Hare Ram Tripathi, Prabhash Pandey, Vinay Sharma, Gaurav Kumar, Radhey Shyam Yadav, Saurabh Tiwari, Siddharth Srivastava, Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ashvinee Kumar Srivastava and Ashutosh Pandey (in person).

The dispute in brief

The entire controversy relates to Mughal emperor Aurangazeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to have been built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement has now been doubted by parties seeking various forms of relief in courts with respect to Krishna Janmabhoomi. The litigants' contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque.

In May last year, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all the suits pending before the Mathura court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, allowing the transfer application filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and seven others.