Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeLaw'Monumental' decisions? Five structures whose origins are the subject of litigation before...

‘Monumental’ decisions? Five structures whose origins are the subject of litigation before courts

There are two separate proceedings pending with regard to this structure – one before the Allahabad High Court and the other before Mathura District Court.

(i) The plea before the High Court is a public interest litigation (PIL) petition.

The High Court had, on February 17 this year, restored the PIL after it was initially dismissed in default on January 19, 2021.

The plea has sought directions to hand over Mathura’s Shahi Masjid, which stands adjacent to the Sri Krishna Temple, to Hindus.

The plea was moved by Advocate Mehek Maheshwari who claimed that Mathura’s Shahi Masjid was built at the Krishna Janmasthan, the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

According to the petition, it housed the Katra Keshavdev Temple, which was demolished in the 16th century by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who then built the Shahi Masjid mosque in its place.

The petitioner thus sought interim relief in the form of permitting Hindus to worship at the Masjid certain days a week, and on Janmashtami.

Status: The case will now be heard by the High Court on July 25.

(ii) The suit before the district court was moved to remove the Shahi Idgah Masjid on grounds that it was built over Krishna Janmabhoomi land. The plaintiffs have, therefore, staked claimed to 13.37 acres of land on the ground that it was the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

A civil court had dismissed the suit on 30 September, 2020 citing the bar on admitting the case under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. However, this decision was appealed before the Mathura District Court.

The appellants asserted that as devotees of Lord Krishna, they have a right to move the suit in view of their fundamental religious rights under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

The court reserved its verdict in the appeal on May 5, 2022.

Status: The Mathura District Court is expected to pronounce its verdict on May 19, 2022.

Source: Barandbench

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments