‘Waqf Board’s nature to encroach any property’, argues Hindu side in Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case.

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Row: Waqf Board’s nature to encroach any property, it doesn’t come to this case.

Aarti Agnihotri | HENB | Prayagraj | May 8, 2024:: It has been the nature of the Waqf Board to “encroach upon any property” and declare it as its asset, the Hindu side in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case claimed before the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday, reported PTI.

Rina N Singh, the counsel for the Hindu side, submitted that this “practice” of the Waqf Board cannot be permitted.

The argument was made during the hearing of a plea challenging the suit seeking “removal” of the Shahi Idgah mosque adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura.

The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on applications moved by the Muslim side challenging the maintainability of 18 consolidated suits.

On May 2, the Hindu side told the Allahabad High Court that the temple is a protected monument and it should be governed under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

On Tuesday, Singh, appearing on behalf of the Hindu side, said the Muslim side claimed that the said property became a waqf property through a compromise entered in 1968 between the two sides, but argued that the deity, who is the owner of the property, was not a party to it, reported PTI.

She also argued that provisions of the Places of Worship Act and the Waqf Act are not applicable in the case.

At the previous hearing in the case, the Hindu side had submitted that Krishna Janmabhoomi is a protected monument and is also a monument of national importance and same shall be governed by the provisions of ‘The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.’ and the provisions of the Places of Worship Act will not apply.

Advocate Hari Shankar Jain appearing for the Hindu side had argued that worshipping at the Krishna Janmabhoomi is the fundamental right of Hindus.

Prior to that, Advocate Rahul Sahai, appearing for the plaintiff in one of the suits had submitted that religious character had not been defined in the 1991 Act. The religious character of place/structure could only be decided by evidence, which could only be decided by the civil court, he said. Sahai had also placed a judgment passed in the Gyanvapi case which had held that religious character could only be decided by a civil court.

The Muslim side in this case would present its arguments after the completion of the arguments of the Hindu side.

The matter will be heard next on May 15.

…

__Inputs from PTI.