There is an important hearing in the Allahabad High Court today in the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute case of Mathura.
Allahabad High Court is hearing the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by Shahi Idgah Mosque Committee and Sunni Central Waqf Board regarding the maintainability of the civil suit filed by Lord Shri Krishna Virajman Katra Keshav Dev and seven others.
The petitions filed by the Hindu side have claimed that the mosque has been constructed on 13.37 acres of land of Katra Keshav Dev Temple.
A single bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain is hearing the case.
On December 14, 2023, the Allahabad High Court had accepted the application seeking formation of Advocate Commission for court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah Mosque complex adjacent to Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Mathura.
This order of the High Court was challenged by the Muslim side in the Supreme Court.
On January 17, on the petition of the Muslim side, the Supreme Court had stayed the order constituting the Advocate Commission by the Allahabad High Court.
But the Supreme Court had made it clear that the hearing in the dispute, including the maintainability of the case, would continue before the Allahabad High Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
After the Supreme Court’s stay order, the Hindu side had also filed an application demanding a revenue survey in the Allahabad High Court.
In May last year, Allahabad High Court had transferred all the cases related to Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute from Mathura Court to itself.
After hearing the case on Friday (23 February), Justice Mayank Kumar Jain had ordered the next hearing on 29 February.
Continuing the debate on Friday, Waqf Board’s advocate Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, who appeared through video conference, argued that in 1968, there was an agreement between Shri Krishna Janam Seva Sangh and Shahi Idgah Mosque Committee, under which the land on which the mosque stands. The land was given to the Mosque Committee.
He said this agreement was later confirmed by a court by passing an order in 1974.
The lawyer had said that the present suit has been filed in violation of that agreement and the court order, hence it cannot be heard.