[Gyanvapi] Historical Wrong Can Be Adjudicated By Court Of Present Regime: Lord Vishweshwar's Next Friend Argues In Allahabad HC

In the ongoing hearing before the Allahabad High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar and one of the contesting respondents in the case on Wednesday argued that if a historical wrong has been done by the previous sovereign regime, the matter can be adjudicated by the Municipal Court of the present sovereign regime.Before the Bench of Justice Prakash Padia, it was further argued that Waren Hastings [first Governor-General of Bengal in 1772–1785] had constructed Naubatkhana on the temple of Lord Vishweshwar and recognized the rights of Hindus over the Gyanwapi Compound.These submissions were made by Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi, who is the Court appointed next friend of Lord Vishweshwar. During the previous hearings in the case, he had termed the dispute as a national dispute and had stated that the decision in the Ram Janambhumi case had increased the importance of the case.Read more about his submissions here: "Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute A National Dispute; Emotions Of Millions Are Involved": Lord Vishweshwar's Next Friend Argue In Allahabad HC and here: 'Vishweshwar Jyotirlinga' Is Situated Below Gyanvapi Mosque Which Is Self Manifested : Lord's Next Friend Argues In Allahabad HCSignificantly, referring to the Din Mohd case (1937), Rastogi argued that in its written statement filed on behalf of defendant/Secretary of State for India in Council, it was denied that the land in question was Waqf land and it was never dedicated to GodHe also submitted that in that very case, Hindus as the deity Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar (Vishwanath), the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (society) as well the U.P. Muslim Board of Waqf, Lucknow were not parties, hence the judgment passed in the said case is not binding upon the Hindus in General and the Hindu deities.It may be noted that it in Din Mohd case (1937), it was decided by the Court as to which area is the property of the mosque and which area is the property of the temple.Further, referring to The Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, Rastogi claimed that rights of the ownership of this Temple and its endowment are vested in the Deity of Sri Kashi Vishwanath, i.e., Lord Visheshwar which is itself mentioned in Section 5 of the Act, 1983. It was lastly argued by him that the validity of Act, 1983 had been upheld by the Supreme Court and therefore the same is the law of the land. Due to paucity of time, the arguments could not be concluded and therefore, the Court listed the case on July 15, 2022.The background of the caseEssentially, the Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi has challenged (before the HC) the suit filed before the Varanasi Court by the Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others in the year 1991 claiming the restoration of the land on which the Gyanvapi Mosque stands to Hindus.Earlier, the contesting respondents argued before the Court that the petitioner [Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi] had initially filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejecting the plaint (of the Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar) however, they did not press the same for a considerable time and instead of pressing the aforesaid application, they chose to file written statement in the plaint.It was further argued by the counsel for the respondent that on the basis of pleadings in the suit, the issues were framed by the Varanasi Court. The Counsel also submitted that the property in question, i.e. the temple of Lord Visheshwar has been in existence from ancient times, i.e., Satyug up till now.It was his further submission that the Swayambhu Lord Visheshwar is situated in the disputed structure, and therefore, the land in dispute is itself an integral part of Lord Visheshwar.On the argument put forth by the Majid committee that since the plaint was barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the same should be rejected, the respondents have argued that the religious character of the place of worship remained the same as on the day of August 15, 1947, therefore, the provisions of Place of Worship Act, 1991 cannot be applied.AppearancesPetitioner's Counsels - A.P.Sahai , A.K. Rai , D.K.Singh , G.K.Singh , M.A. Qadeer , S.I.Siddiqui , Syed Ahmed Faizan , Tahira Kazmi , V.K. Singh and Vishnu Kumar Singh Respondent's Counsel - A.P.Srivastava , Ajay Kumar Singh , C.S.C. , Ashish Kr.Singh , Bakhteyar Yusuf , Hare Ram , Prabhash Pandey , R.S.Maurya , Rakesh Kumar Singh , V.K.S.Chaudhary , Vineet Pandey and Vineet SankalpCase title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]Click Here To Read/Download Order

[Gyanvapi] Historical Wrong Can Be Adjudicated By Court Of Present Regime: Lord Vishweshwar's Next Friend Argues In Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[Gyanvapi] Historical Wrong Can Be Adjudicated By Court Of Present Regime: Lord Vishweshwar's Next Friend Argues In Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers