Kashi-Gyanvapi Dispute Case |"Lord Visheshwar's Temple Was Destroyed But Its Religious Character Didn't Change": Lord's Next Friend Argue 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, one of the contesting respondents in the case, today argued Lord Visheshwar has been in existence from ancient time, i.e., Satyug up till now.Before the bench of Justice Prakash Padia, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar further argued that if the temple (of the lord vishveshwar) had been destroyed by any means, its religious character never changed, and therefore, Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 won't be applicable because the structure of old temple was built prior to the 15th Century.It may be noted that the aforesaid provision deals with the declaration as to the religious character of certain places of worship and in this regard, the Next Friend of Lord Vishweshwar argued that the said act won't be applicable as the structure of old temple was built prior to the 15th Century."...it is clear from the averments of the plaint that the property in question, i.e. the temple of Lord Visheshwar has been in existence from ancient time, i.e., Satyug (सतयगय) up till now and the Swayambhu Lord Visheshwar is situated in the disputed structure. It is further argued that if the temple has been destroyed by any means, the religious character never changed, therefore, Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is not applicable because the structure of old temple was built prior to the 15th Century," Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi, the Court appointed next friend of Lord Vishweshwar.Stressing that mere registration of the property in the Waqf Act does not affect the rights of a person who is not a Muslim, he fjurther argued that the Waqf Act is applied only in the disputes arising between Muslims and therefore, even if the disputed structure/property in question is registered under the waqf act, it doesn't have any effect over the claim of Hindus as the Hindus have the right over the said property being lord vishveshwar's temple.It was specifically argued by him that the Muslim party is not clear that under which Act and in which year, the property in dispute had been registered as Waqf property. It was also his submission that there is no evidence in this regard given by the defendant before any Court. He further argued that the Waqf Act, 1954 had never been applicable in the State of U.P. at any point of time. Due to paucity of time, arguments could not be concluded and therefore, the matter along with other connected matters was listed on April 28, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. for further hearing.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.Last month, 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 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.AppearancesS.F.A. Naqvi, Senior Counsel assisted by Syed Ahmad Faizan and Punit Kumar Gupta, assisted by Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Singh, Vijay Shankar Rastogi, Sunil Rastogi, Tejas Singh and Vineet Sankalp, counsels appeared for the contesting respondents. Shashi Prakash Singh, Senior Counsel/Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Manoj Kumar Singh, counsel appeared for respondent No.7 and M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General/Senior Advocate assisted by Vineet Pandey, Chief Standing Counsel, Vijay Sharnkar Prasad and Ved Mani Pandey Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent No.8.Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And...

Kashi-Gyanvapi Dispute Case |"Lord Visheshwar's Temple Was Destroyed But Its Religious Character Didn't Change": Lord's Next Friend Argue In Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Kashi-Gyanvapi Dispute Case |"Lord Visheshwar's Temple Was Destroyed But Its Religious Character Didn't Change": Lord's Next Friend Argue In Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers