In a significant ruling on Krishna Janmabhoomi case, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition from the Muslim community on 1 August 2024 that challenged the validity of 18 lawsuits filed by Hindus seeking the removal of a mosque located within a 13.37-acre complex shared with the Katra Keshav Dev temple.

The court ruled that all 18 lawsuits were valid, allowing them to proceed based on their merits. These lawsuits were not barred by the Limitation Act or the Places of Worship Act, among others, the court said.

This ruling counters the main argument of the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura). The argument said the ongoing lawsuits were prohibited under the Places of Worship Act of 1991, the Limitation Act of 1963, and the Specific Relief Act of 1963.

Waqf Board provisions

Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, representing the Muslim side, argued that the provisions of the Waqf Board should apply and that the Waqf tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter.

In response, the Hindu plaintiffs contended that no property registered as Shah Idgah was in government records. They further argued if it were a Waqf property, the Waqf Board should reveal the identity of the property’s donor.

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain announced the ruling about two months after the bench reserved its decision on 6 June 2024. The next hearing is on 12 August 2024.

Dispute Background

The controversy centres around the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura. Mughal emperor Aurangzeb reportedly constructed it after he demolished a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna there.

In 1968, Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which manages the temple, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah, reached a ‘compromise agreement’ permitting both places of worship to coexist. However, at least a dozen parties went to court in the last 5 years, questioning this agreement.

The litigants argue that the compromise agreement is fraudulent and legally invalid. Many assert their right to worship at the contested site and are demanding the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque.

In May of last year, the Allahabad High Court assumed jurisdiction over all pending cases in the Mathura court related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, granting the transfer application submitted by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and seven others.

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day.

The post Krishna Janmabhoomi Case: Allahabad High Court Validates Hindu Lawsuits Seeking Removal Of Shahi Eidgah Mosque, Dismisses Muslim Petition appeared first on The Commune.

The Madras High Court has ruled against a 2010 amendment that brought Waqf properties under the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1976, thereby giving authority to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to order the eviction of encroachers.

Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy presiding the bench found the 2010 amendment by the State legislature to be incompatible with the Waqf Act of 1995, a Central law. They determined that encroachers on waqf properties could only be evicted through waqf tribunals established under a 2013 amendment to the Central law.

The judges supported arguments by a group of lawyers, led by Senior Counsel V Raghavachari and SR Raghunathan, that the 2010 amendment exceeded state jurisdiction and required Presidential approval due to its conflict with Union legislation. Rejecting the State government’s argument for the coexistence of state and Central laws, the bench ruled that only the procedures outlined in the Union law should be followed for eviction, as stated in the 2013 amendment.

In their ruling, Justice Chakravarthy highlighted the inadequacy of the original provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 in addressing encroachments on Waqf properties. He noted the recommendation of the Sachar Committee to extend the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to waqf properties for the benefit of the public. While Tamil Nadu implemented the 2010 amendment based on this recommendation, many other states did not. Consequently, the Parliament amended the Waqf Act in 2013 to ensure uniformity in eviction procedures nationwide. The bench noted that this amendment superseded the 2010 state amendment.

In concluding their verdict, the bench emphasized, “The Parliamentary law intends to secure the protection of waqf properties which requires uniformity of law and consistency of its application all over the country. The Central Act is thus made as an exhaustive code on the subject. Therefore, the State enactment is repugnant to the Waqf Act of 1995 as amended in the year 2013.” 

The #MadrasHC has declared unconstitutional, a 2010 amendment which brought waqf properties under the ambit of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1976, reports @imranhindu https://t.co/2N6e2I1cvg

— The Hindu – Chennai (@THChennai) April 25, 2024

(with inputs from The Hindu)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madras HC Declares 2010 Amendment On Waqf Act Unconstitutional; Gives Authority To TN Waqf Board CEO To Order Encroachers’ Eviction appeared first on The Commune.