No Survey Order For Now In 'Atala Mosque' Case | Jaunpur Court Posts Matter For March 2 In View Of SC's Interim Order
Image Courtesy : Shah Umair/Instagram/sikkawala
A Court in Uttar Pradesh's Jaunpur District today refused to pass any orders on the Swaraj Vahini Association's plea seeking an Amin survey of the city's 14th Century Atala Mosque in view of the Supreme Court's Dec 12 interim order restraining courts from passing any effective interim or final orders, including orders for a survey.
“As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that till the next date of hearing in the pending suits, no court will pass any effective interim orders or final order, including orders directing surveys. Any hearing on 17C / orders on 17C as the police aid for Amin writ will not be passed by this court till the further supreme court directions. Office to not issue any Amin writ . Strict compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court be made,” Jaunpur Court's operative part of the order states. (emphasis supplied)
Civil Judge (JD) City Jaunpur, Sudha Sharma, has now posted the matter for orders on March 2, 2025, 12 days after the Supreme Court will hear a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Places Of Worship Act 1991, which prohibits the conversion of the religious character of places of worship from their status as of August 15, 1947.
No survey order for now in the #AtalaMosque case.In light of #SupremeCourt's December 12 order, the #JaunpurCourt has now posted the matter for orders on March 2, 2025.Court said: office to not issue any main writ. strict compliance of the order of the Supreme Court be made. https://t.co/vJ2Bk9ucui— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 16, 2024
The Supreme Court's December 12 order can be seen as a significant intervention in raising concerns about filing multiple suits in the country claiming ownership of medieval mosques and dargahs.
A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the following order.
"As the matter is sub-judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this Court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the Courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey till the next date of hearing."
However, the Court refused to stay the proceedings in the suits which are presently pending against places of worship like mosques/dargahs. The Court also asked the Union Government to file its counter-affidavit in the petitions which question the Places of Worship Act within four weeks.
It may be noted that a suit has been filed by the Swaraj Vahini Association (SVA) and one Santosh Kumar Mishra, seeking a declaration that the disputed property is 'Atala Devi Mandir' and that followers of the Sanatan religion have the right to worship therein.
They also pray for the possession of the suit property and seek a mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants and other non-Hindus from entering it. In this very matter, the application for an Amin/Advocate commission survey was filed by the plaintiff.
Recently, the Waqf Atala Mosque has moved before the HC, challenging an order of the lower court allowing the plaintiff's plea to sue under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in a representative capacity.
Before the Jaunpur Court, the plaintiffs in their suit, have claimed that during the later half of the 13th century, after Feroz Tughlaq's invasion in India, the said temple was partially demolished, and a mosque was constructed on its pillars. The plaintiffs further argue that Tughlaq prevented Hindus from entering the site, which was originally a Hindu temple built by Hindu artisans in traditional style.
The plaintiffs also contend that the structure in question, the Atala Masjid, was never a mosque but was originally the Hindu temple of Atala Devi. They claim that the building retains its Hindu architectural style, reflecting various customs, which were erased in an attempt to present it as a mosque.
The plaintiffs assert that no mosque should be constructed by demolishing a temple, as Islam and the Quran do not permit offering Namaz in a mosque built on the site of a demolished temple, which they argue is against the law.