Varanasi 2022, Kashi Vishwanath temple in Gyan Vapi Masjid dispute is getting heard in Allahabad High Court.
Varanasi 2022, These days, the Allahabad High Court is hearing a world-famous dispute between Varanasi’s Kashi Vishwanath Temple and the Gyanwapi Mosque in the same courtyard. The next hearing on the case is scheduled for May 10 in Judge Prakash Padia’s Court.
Vijay Shankar Rastogi, a senior lawyer who appeared on the temple grounds, questioned the existence of the mosque. He told the court that a mosque was built there after the Kashi Vishweshwar Nath Temple was demolished.
The panel of Sole Judge Prakash Padia heard the petition submitted by Anjuman Intazamia Masjid Varanasi. Vijay Shankar Rastogi argued that simply registering property under the Waqf Act did not revoke the rights of non-Muslims.
It is claimed that some amendments were made to the Waqf Law 1960 in 1984, but the amendments did not come into force.
It is held that under the amendment, it is in effect that if any dispute arises between the Waqf Council and a non-Muslim concerning Waqf property, a notice shall be given and in that regard, no notice or opportunity. presented by the plaintiffs, Waqf’s law is therefore not applicable.
It also asserts that, while the Waqf Act of 1995 came into force, there was a provision in the Act requiring Waqf’s property to be re-registered, but disputed properties were never re-registered under the Waqf Act of 1995. , and therefore the property in dispute is not Waqf’s property and the provisions of the Waqf Act do not apply.
Vijay Shankar Rastogi relied on the Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike ruling reported in 2019. (1) ARC 511
From the above, it is claimed that the disputed site cannot be treated as the property of Waqf. Rastogi further claimed that the original proceeding was filed in the court of Deputy Judge Varanasi by Deen Mohammad, Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad Zakariya.
What did the court said:-
Based on the above, it is argued that the lawsuit filed in 1936 and its decision are of no benefit to the plaintiff.
Because the lawsuit was brought by the plaintiffs in their own capacity, and the relief granted by the court of first instance only applied to the plaintiff in the lawsuit, the civil court’s ruling could not benefit anyone else.
In addition, since the aspect of the above case can only be judged by the civil court through the examination of evidence, the judgment of the lower court is maintained and the lawsuit filed by the applicant is dismissed.
As for other warrant claims filed in 2022, central and state defense counsel argue that any warrant issued by a court or lower court must comply with the same warrant.
The next hearing is on 10th May.
In previous hearing:-
Varanasi 2022, At the hearing, all parties attended and received information on the situation of the site on behalf of the employee’s lawyer, while also conducting a discussion of evidence on behalf of the judge. Judge Padia also asked about the commissioner’s on-site inspection. The Varanasi court has recently appointed a certified attorney. When the “Prosecutors and Videographers” Commissioner of the Conflict Area is required to collect evidence of the existence of the gods of Shringar Gauri and other gods. At this time, the temple’s lawyer told the court, “If you look at all the evidence and facts, the Gyanvapi Mosque is surrounded by a protective wall that is much older than the mosque, and this wall is part of the temple.”
GYANVAPI MOSQUE , Kashi Vishwanath temple
Also read: Tuberculosis (TB) cases are on the rise after Covid-19!
