- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Gyanvapi-Kashi Title Dispute:...
Gyanvapi-Kashi Title Dispute: 'Civil Suits Not Barred By Places Of Worship Act', Allahabad HC Rejects Masjid Committee's Challenge
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
19 Dec 2023 10:24 AM IST
In the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute cases, the Allahabad High Court today held that a batch of civil suits filed by Hindu worshippers seeking the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque and the restoration of a temple at the disputed place pending before the Varanasi Court ARE NOT BARRED by the Places of Worship Act 1991.With this, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal...
In the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute cases, the Allahabad High Court today held that a batch of civil suits filed by Hindu worshippers seeking the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque and the restoration of a temple at the disputed place pending before the Varanasi Court ARE NOT BARRED by the Places of Worship Act 1991.
With this, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal REJECTED pleas filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee challenging a total of 5 suits concerning Gyanvapi title dispute. The Court added that Masjid compound can have either a Mulsim character or a Hindu character and the same can not be decided at the stage of framing issues.
"The suit affects two major communities of the country...We direct the trial court to expeditiously decide the suit in 6 months," the Court further said.
The Court also said that the ASI survey conducted in one suit shall also be filed in the other suits and if the lower court feels that a survey of any part is necessary, the court may direct ASI to conduct the survey.
BREAKING | [Gyanvapi-Kashi Title Dispute Cases] #AllahabadHighCourt rules that civil suits filed by Hindu Worshippers and deity inter alia seeking restoration of temple at the Mosque premises ARE NOT BARRED by the Places of Worship Act.Masjid Committees challenge REJECTED. pic.twitter.com/pSn7AyRj69— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 19, 2023
The suit, pending before a Varanasi court, seeks to restore an ancient temple at the disputed site currently occupied by the Gyanvapi mosque, with the petitioners contending that the mosque is a part of the temple.
Contesting the suit, it has been the primary contention of the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board that the suit prohibited by the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
For context, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 prohibits the conversion of a religious structure from its nature as it stood on the date of independence.
Last month, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order passed by Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker (now retired) transferring the cases concerning the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute to his bench from the bench of another judge.
A three-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud pointed out that the previous judge (Justice Prakash Padia) had not delivered the judgment despite reserving it in 2021 and holding seventy-five hearings, and hence, the CJ's order to transfer cases was justified.
For the uninitiated, on August 11, the then Chief Justice (Justice Diwaker) passed an order on the administrative side withdrawing the Gyanvapi title dispute cases from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia "in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases". Later, the matters were assigned to the bench of Chief Justice.
This development had come shortly after Justice Padia's bench, which had been hearing the matter since August 2021, concluded the hearing and reserved the orders in the cases on July 25.
The reason behind such a decision was disclosed in the Chief Justice's order dated August 28, wherein it was reasoned that non-observance of the procedure in listing the cases, passing of successive orders for reserving the judgment and again listing the cases before the Judge (Justice Prakash Padia) for hearing through he no longer had the jurisdiction as per the master of the roster, had led to the withdrawal of the cases.
In his 12-page order, the then Chief Justice had stated that essentially his order on the administrative side emanated from a complaint which was made before him on July 27, 2023, by a counsel of one of the parties to the proceedings, highlighting the fact that hearing in the dispute cases was proceeding in derogation of the procedure laid down in law for listing of the cases as per the rules.
To understand the chronology of the circumstances which led to the withdrawal of cases from the single Judge (Justice Prakash Padia), please refer to this report: Gyanvapi-Kashi Title Dispute | 'Procedural Aberration, Jurisdictional Impropriety': Allahabad HC CJ Specifies Reasons For Withdrawing Cases From Single-Judge
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 500
