Mathura District Court Admits Appeal Against Order Dismissing Suit Seeking Removal of Idgah Mosque from Site Claimed as Krishna Janambhoomi3 min read

BY: MOHD. ARKAN

The Mathura District Court, on Friday, admitted an appeal filed against the order of dismissal of a civil lawsuit filed seeking ownership of the entire 13.37-acre of land claimed as Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi and removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid next to the complex of Janmabhoomi temple of Krishna in Mathura.
It has been reported that the District Judge Sadhna Rani Thakur at the Mathura Court has also issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah, Srikrishna Janamsthan Trust, and Shri Krishna Janam Bhoomi Seva Sangh. Judge Thakur has posted the matter for further hearing on November 19, 2020.
Background
In the late September, a group of Krishna devotees along with the Shri Krishna Virajman moved a Mathura Civil Court seeking removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid located next to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple complex and complete ownership of the entire 13.37-acres of land claimed as the birthplace of the Hindu Deity Krishna.
In their lawsuit filed with a Mathura Civil Court, lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri also claimed that the compromise made between the Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Trust Masjid Idgah was illegal and fraudulent. Shri Krishna Virajman also demanded complete ownership of the land for itself despite that the Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan is the governing body of the temple complex.
Additional District Judge Chhaya Sharma rejected this appeal while citing the Places of Worship Act, 1991 which bars the court from entertaining litigations that may alter the status quo of a religious place as it existed at the time of India’s Independence in 1947.
Update
 The Mathura District Court, on Friday, admitted the appeal against the order if a Civil Court that dismissed the plea filed by Shri Krishna Virajman
 In the plea, Shri Krishna Virajman seek the removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid and claimed it to be an illegal encroachment
 They also demanded complete ownership if the entire 13.37-acres of land claimed to be the birthplace of Hindu Lord Krishna
 In the fresh appeal submitted to the Mathura District Court, the plaintiff claimed that the decision of the Mathura Civil Court of dismissing their plea was wrong
 The plaintiffs also mentioned their claims that the exact location of the birth of Shri Krishna lies under the structure of the Idgah Masjid
 They regarded them as the devotees of Shri Krishna in the appeal and said that they have the right to worship and perform rituals at the exact birthplace as it is also protected by the Article 25 of the Constitution
 District Judge Sadhna Rani Thakur at the Mathura Court has issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah, Srikrishna Janamsthan Trust, and Shri Krishna Janam Bhoomi Seva Sangh regarding the plea
 District Judge Thakur has posted the matter for further hearings on November 19, 2020
Summary
On Friday, October 16, 2020, the Mathura District Court admitted to hearing the plea filed against the order of a Mathura Civil Court dismissing the civil lawsuit seeking removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid situated next to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple complex in Mathura and ownership of the entire 13.37 acres of land to be entitled to the Shri Krishna Virajman. The basis of the plea filed with the District Court was given to be the right to religion as mentioned in Article 25 of the Constitution.
The lawsuit filed was, however, rejected by the Additional District Judge Chhaya Sharma citing the Places of Worship Act, 1991 which bars the judiciary from entertaining litigations that change the status quo of a religious place as it was at the time of India’s Independence.
District Court Judge Sadhna Rani Thakur admitted the plea against the Civil Court’s order and issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah, Srikrishna Janamsthan Trust, and Shri Krishna Janam Bhoomi Seva Sangh. The matter is posted on November 19 for further hearing.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

READ ALSO: Woman has the right to stay at estranged in-law’s home, says Supreme Court