On April 4, the HC will next hear the Shahi Eidgah title dispute issue

Prayagraj: The Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Masjid title dispute issue was rescheduled for a further hearing by the Allahabad High Court on April 4.

The Muslim side has filed motions with Justice Mayank Kumar Jain over the maintainability of eighteen aggregated actions that demand the demolition of the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura. The mosque was constructed on 13.37 acres of property belonging to the Katra Keshav Deo temple, according to lawsuits filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and 17 other people at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat.
Senior lawyer Tasneem Ahmadi, the counsel representing the Muslim side (the management committee of Shahi-Eidgah Masjid and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board), concluded her arguments before the court, arguing that the claim was precluded by limitation.

She added that on October 12, 1968, the parties reached a solution, which was subsequently validated in a 1974 civil suit decision. When there is a three-year statute of limitations for contesting a compromise, the lawsuit was barred by limitation when it was filed in 2020.
It was further argued that the claim was brought for ownership of the Shahi Eidgah Mosque after its construction was removed, for the restoration of the mosque, and for a permanent injunction. It was argued that the prayer in the lawsuit demonstrated that the masjid’s (mosque) physical structure existed and that the management committee was in possession of it. “Since a question or dispute has been raised on Waqf property, the Waqf Act’s provisions will apply. As a result, the Waqf Tribunal, not the current civil court, has the jurisdiction to hear the matter,” Ahmadi said.
She had previously argued before the court that the Waqf Act and the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which forbade the conversion of any place of worship and provided for the preservation of any place of worship’s religious character as it existed on August 15, 1947, precluded the continuation of the title suit. The court allowed the plaintiff’s attorney from the Hindu side’s request for a brief period of time to submit an objection to the motion under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC contesting the suit’s maintainability. Manish Goyal, a senior counsel, served as an amicus curiae before the court.