14th Century Jaunpur Atala Mosque Moves Allahabad HC Against Local Court Order To Register A Suit Claiming It Was Ancient Hindu Temple

The 14th Century Atala Mosque in Jaunpur has approached the Allahabad High Court, challenging a local court's order (of May) that directed the registration of a suit, in a representative capacity, at the instance of 'Swaraj Vahini Association' (SVA), claiming the mosque was originally an ancient Hindu temple (Atala Devi Temple).

The suit by the Association and one Santosh Kumar Mishra seeks a declaration that the disputed property is 'Atala Devi Mandir' and followers of the Sanatan religion have the right of worship therein. They pray for the possession of the suit property and seek a mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants and other non-Hindus from entering the property in question.

Further, the suit also seeks permission to sue under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in a representative capacity. This prayer was allowed in the impugned order, and the same was upheld by an order of the District Judge in August this year. Both the orders have been challenged in the petition before the HC.

14th Century #AtalaMosque of #Jaunpur has moved the #AllahabadHighCourt challenging a local court's order to direct registration of a suit claiming the mosque is the ancient Atla Devi Hindu Temple. The suit was filed in a representative capacity by 'Swaraj Vahini Association'. pic.twitter.com/QiBwTXExl4

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 6, 2024

It is the case of the petitioner before the HC (Waqf Atala Masjid Jaunpur) that the plaint is defective, as the plaintiff, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is not a juristic person and, thus, not competent to file the suit in a representative capacity. Additionally, it argues that the society's bylaws do not authorize it to engage in litigation of this nature.

It further adds that the trial court should have rejected the complaint on these grounds; however, it erred in directing the registration of the suit.

The petitioner argues that the Plaintiffs do not have any right to sue. The property in question has always been a Mosque, and it has never been in the possession of followers of any other religion, nor do they have any title over the same.

The petitioner also contends that the property in question has been registered as a mosque and has been continuously used as such since its construction in 1398 and the Muslim community offers regular prayers, including Juma prayers.

Further, it argues that even the Waqf Board was not made a party in the plaint, and the court facilitated this mischief by simply proceeding in a mechanical manner without looking at the sensitive nature of the suit and the shrewd and mischievous manner of instituting the same.

It adds that the property is also registered with the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, and the plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act. Since the mosque has been in use by the Muslim community since 1947, the complaint is also barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991.

"...(as claimed by the plaintiffs) Raja Vijay Chandra did not build any Mandir dedicated to Atla Devi at Dhalgar Tola or at the place where the Atala Mosque exists and no follower of the Hindu religion has ever performed Puja etc. at the said place either earlier or at present; that signs of Hindu culture or their style of construction are not present at the pillars and columns of Atala Mosque; that the foundation of Atala Masjid was laid in the year 1376 by Feroz Shah Tughlaq and it was completed in the year 1408," the plea states.

It may be noted that in their plaint filed before the Jaunpur Civil Court, the plaintiffs claim that the Atala Devi Mandir, built by Raja Vijay Chandra in the 13th century, was a Hindu temple where rituals like puja, sewa, and kirtan were performed.

They allege 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.

Waqf Atala Mosque has moved the HC through Advocates Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Rizwan Jamal Alvi and Shibli Naseem.