Crime Today News
The Allahabad High Court on Monday upheld the trial court order of November 19, which directed an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque located in Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh in a suit claiming that the religious structure was built after destroying a temple.
Rejecting the Mosque Committee’s plea against the trial court verdict, the single-judge Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that the Hindu Plaintiffs were prima facie not barred.
The Mosque Committee contended before the High Court that the trial court passed the survey order in haste, without issuing notice to them. The survey of the mosque was undertaken on November 19 and 24, 2024.
The Civil Judge (Junior Division) had delivered the verdict on a suit filed by eight plaintiffs, including Mahant Rishiraj Giri, claiming that the Mosque at Sambhal was built in 1526 after demolishing a Hindu temple (Hari Har Temple) dedicated to Kalki, the last avatar of Lord Vishnu. In 1526, the temple was partly demolished and converted into a mosque, following the orders of Mughal King Babar, they added.
Represented by Advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, the plaintiffs claimed the right to access the mosque.
Advocate Commissioner Ramesh Raghav has already filed the survey report in a sealed cover to the trial court.
In November, 2024, the Supreme Court directed the trial court not to proceed further with the matter until the Mosque Committee’s petition against the survey order was listed before the High Court.
The ASI submitted a counter before the High Court, stating that the ‘Juma Mosque’ has been notified as a Centrally Protected Monument. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958 came into effect after Independence and its provisions were now applicable to such monuments. Under Section 5 of the AMASR Act, the ASI was empowered to acquire rights for the preservation of protected monuments. Section 4 also authorised the Union government to declare any monument of historical importance as protected, thereby any unauthorised claims of ownership or control (referring to Masjid Committee’s claims) have no meaning.
The ASI further said that the mosque was nowhere described as a religious place in official records. There was no historical, archaeological, or revenue evidence supporting the term ‘Shahi Masjid,’ it added.
This article first appeared on India Legal
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
