[…] How Hindu Rishi Sunak is Big Problem for Some UK Muslims […]
*Hindu Rights to Survive with Dignity & Sovereignty *Join Hindu Freedom Movement to make Bharat Hindu Rashtra within 2025 *Jai Shri Ram *Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram *Editor: Upananda Brahmachari.
Upendra Bharti | HENB | Lucknow | May 10, 2022:: The hearing of Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Masjid case will be held at 2 pm on Wednesday. During the hearing of the case on Tuesday, it has been said orally by the court of civil judge (senior division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar that if needed, I myself will go to the spot. The arguments of both the parties were discussed in the hearing held in the court on Tuesday regarding the Gyanvapi Masjid case. It was believed that today the court can pronounce the verdict in the matter, but now the matter will be heard on Wednesday as well.
Let us tell you that there is a ruckus in the Gyanvapi Masjid regarding the survey. Hindu and Muslim sides are face to face. The team reached the mosque for two days for the survey, but the survey could not be done. Regarding this, it was alleged on behalf of the Hindu side that many people were present inside the mosque, who did not allow the survey to be done properly.
On the other hand, the Muslim side says that in the name of survey, efforts were being made to damage the walls of the mosque. Now the matter is in court. For which the decision is awaited. Further survey will be done only after the order of the court.
In this case, one party has also demanded to change the court commissioner. He says that a senior lawyer should be appointed for a fair investigation of the case and the current court commissioner should be replaced. It is being told that the court can issue orders regarding the commissioner at any time.
Like Gyanvapi, a demand has been made to appoint a court commissioner to inspect the Idgah in Mathura too.
Earlier, one of the petitioners of the temple side argued that Gyanvapi mosque was never a part of a Waqf property and Waqf Act is not applicable for Hindus.
Appearing for the Kashi Vishwanath temple before the bench of Justice Prakash Padia of Allhabad High Court on April 28, 2022, senior counsel Vijay Shankar Rastogi asserted that the provisions of the Waqf Act are not applicable to this mosque as it is not a waqf property.
Mr. Rastogi advanced his argument refuting claims by appellants Anjuman Intazamia Masjid of Varanasi and the Sunni Central Waqf Board of Lucknow in their petitions that the mosque was a Waqf Property, a property permanently and irrevocably donated by an eligible, legally constituted ‘Waqif’ (legal donor) for a pious and religious purpose and hence rendered non-transferrable.
Mr. Rastogi, however, argued in the court and also explained later to PTI that the Gyanwapi Mosque cannot be said to be a Waqf property because it was not dedicated by any legal Waqif after the demolition of the Kashi Vishwanath temple in 1669.
There was never any dedication of the property to God or to build a mosque by any Waqif after its demolition by its destroyer, Mr. Rastogi said.
Mr. Rastogi also argued that the disputed property was earlier once registered as Waqf Property before the enactment of the Waqf Act, 1995, which provided for the re-registration of the Waqf Property, but it was never done.
Moreover, the earlier registration of the disputed property as a Waqf property did not affect Hindu’s rights over it as the Waqf Act only concerned Muslims, he argued.
Accordingly, the disputed property is not a waqf property and the provisions of the Waqf Act do not apply to it, he asserted.
Earlier during the last hearing on April 12, Mr. Rastogi had argued that the Kashi Vishwanath temple of Lord Vishweshwar has been in the existence since ancient times and the Lord is situated in the disputed structure.
Despite its demolition, the religious character of the temple never changed, he said, arguing that section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is not applicable to the temple because it was an old temple and was built prior to the 15th century.
Mr. Rastogi made this argument in response to the reliance of appellants’ counsel on section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which bars filing of any suit or initiating any other legal proceeding for a conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, as existing on August 15, 1947.
Then, Justice Padia adjourned the matter for further hearing on May 10.
The original suit was filed in 1991 in the Varanasi district court for the restoration of the ancient temple at the site where the Gyanvapi mosque currently stands.
The details outcome of the case will be reported in this website when it is available next.
__Inputs from ABP Live and PTI.