Allahabad High Court To Decide Maintainability Of Civil Suit Filed In Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Masjid Land Title Dispute; Order Reserved

A Single Bench of Justice Prakash Padia has reserved its judgment after hearing the Petitioner- Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi (Mosque Committee) and the Respondents.

The land title dispute relates to the Gyanpavi Mosque, allegedly built on the ruins of Kashi Vishwanath temple. According to the suit filed by the Temple's Trust in 1991 in the Varansi District Court, the temple was destroyed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1664 and the mosque was built using the remains of the temple.

In the instant petition, Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi had challenged the maintainability of the said suit.

It has argued that the impugned suit is barred by Section 9 as well as Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Section 9 of CPC states that Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Similarly, Order 7 Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears to be barred by any law, the Court shall reject the plaint.

The case of the Petitioner is that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 bars filing of suit or any other legal proceedings with respect to conversion of religious character of any place of worship, existing on August 15, 1947.

[Note: The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act is pending challenge before the Supreme Court on the ground that it arbitrarily sets a cut-off date and bars remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages prior to August 15, 1947.]

It is argued that the impugned suit has been filed in contravention of the above provision and proceedings thereof should be quashed on this ground alone.

The Petitioner has also made reference to the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case, where the Supreme Court had observed,

"Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future."

Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi assisted Advocates Syed Ahmad Faizan, Punit Gupta, Rahees Ansari, Akhlaq Ahmad, Zaheer Asgar, Poorva Agarwal and Fatma Anjum appeared for Petitioner.

Advocates Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Vijay Shankar Rastogi, Sunil Kumar Rastogi, Chandra Shekhar Seth Tejas Singh, Tarun Tripathi, Amar Nath Tripathi and Vineet Sankalp appeared for Respondents.

Related News

Last year, the Allahabad High Court stayed the decision of the Varanasi District Court to proceed with the hearing of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute.

In the backdrop, after the suit was filed in 1991, the Allahabad High Court imposed an interim stay on the hearing of the dispute in question.

In February 2020, the District court held that the stay order stood vacated in light of the Supreme Court's verdict in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299.

In Asian Resurfacing (supra), the top court had held that "all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended."

The District court observed that since the stay order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 1998 had not been extended by a separate order within six months, the stay was deemed to be vacated and it could resume hearing of the case.

This order of the District Court was stayed by the High Court in view of following submissions made by the Petitioner:

Directions issued by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing (supra) did not fall within the purview of "law" declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution but it rather fell within the purview of Article 142 of the Constitution and hence, the same was not binding on its subordinate courts.

[Note: As per Article 141 of the Constitution, all courts and authorities have to implement the orders of the Supreme Court with deference and in letter and spirit immediately after the judgments are rendered. However, orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only in the manner prescribed therein.]

Case Title: Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid Varanasi v. Ist Additional District Judge, Varanasi & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order