- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Gyanvapi ASI Survey Stay | "Matter...
Gyanvapi ASI Survey Stay | "Matter Of National Importance": Allahabad High Court Seeks ASI DG's Personal Affidavit In 10 Days
Sparsh Upadhyay
31 Aug 2022 1:42 PM IST
In the ongoing hearing before the Allahabad High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the High Court yesterday called the affidavit filed by the state government and the central goverment 'sketchy' and further directed Additional Secretary (Home) U.P. Government to file his personal affidavit in the matter within ten days.Terming the matter as...
In the ongoing hearing before the Allahabad High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the High Court yesterday called the affidavit filed by the state government and the central goverment 'sketchy' and further directed Additional Secretary (Home) U.P. Government to file his personal affidavit in the matter within ten days.
Terming the matter as 'national importance', the bench of Justice Prakash Padia directed the Director General, Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi is directed to file his personal affidavit in the matter within the same period, i.e., ten days.
The affidavits had been sought from the central government and the state government last year after the High Court had stayed proceedings in the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir-Gyanvapi Masjid effectively suspending a controversial order of the Varanasi Court that had ordered an archaeological survey of the premises to determine whether a Hindu temple was partially razed to build the Gyanvapi mosque in the 17th century.
Now seeking the affidavits from the UP Government and DG, ASI, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on 12.09.2022 at 2:00 P.M. The interim order restraining ASI survey of the presmises has been extended till 30 September, 2022.
On the other hand, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar and one of the contesting respondents in the case on Monday argued that the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 prohibit the conversion of a place of worship, however, the same shall not be applicable in the case before the Varanasi court as the plaint of the plaintiff does not seek conversion of the place and rather, it seeks determination of the disputed place as a temple.
It was further argued that the religious character of the place in dispute is a temple which is in existence from ancient time till today, therefore, for better adjudication of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. the evidence should be led.
The background of the case
Essentially, the Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi has challenged (before the HC) the suit filed before the Varanasi Court by the Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others in the year 1991 claiming the restoration of the land on which the Gyanvapi Mosque stands to Hindus.
The Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid Varanasi has also challenged the proceeding before the Varanasi court in which an ASI survey had been ordered last year, the High Court stayed that very order last year in September.
Earlier, the contesting respondents argued before the Court that the petitioner [Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi] had initially filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejecting the plaint (of the Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar) however, they did not press the same for a considerable time and instead of pressing the aforesaid application, they chose to file written statement in the plaint.
It was further argued by the counsel for the respondent that on the basis of pleadings in the suit, the issues were framed by the Varanasi Court. The Counsel also submitted that the property in question, i.e. the temple of Lord Visheshwar has been in existence from ancient times, i.e., Satyug up till now.
It was his further submission that the Swayambhu Lord Visheshwar is situated in the disputed structure, and therefore, the land in dispute is itself an integral part of Lord Visheshwar.
On the argument put forth by the Majid committee that since the plaint was barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the same should be rejected, the respondents have argued that the religious character of the place of worship remained the same as on the day of August 15, 1947, therefore, the provisions of Place of Worship Act, 1991 cannot be applied.
Appearances
Petitioner's Counsels - A.P.Sahai , A.K. Rai , D.K.Singh , G.K.Singh , M.A. Qadeer , S.I.Siddiqui , Syed Ahmed Faizan , Tahira Kazmi , V.K. Singh and Vishnu Kumar Singh
Respondent's Counsel - A.P.Srivastava , Ajay Kumar Singh , C.S.C. , Ashish Kr.Singh , Bakhteyar Yusuf , Hare Ram , Prabhash Pandey , R.S.Maurya , Rakesh Kumar Singh , V.K.S.Chaudhary , Vineet Pandey and Vineet Sankalp
Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]
