Latest news with #Actof1958
The Hindu
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Allahabad High Court upholds lower court's order appointing Advocate Commissioner to survey Sambhal mosque
The Allahabad High Court on Monday (May 19, 2025) upheld a lower court's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the 'disputed' Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. The mosque committee had approached the High Court challenging the survey, which was ordered under the suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs claiming the mosque had been built on the site by Mughal emperor Babur in 1526 after demolishing the Harihar temple, dedicated to Kalki, the last avatar of Lord Vishnu as per mythology. Last November, a civil court in Sambhal ordered a survey of the mosque by an Advocate Commissioner. Soon after, Ramesh Raghav, the designated officer, conducted a harried survey of the mosque. The survey was followed by communal violence in the town, leading to the death of four persons. The mosque committee, in its arguments, submitted that the dispute regarding the mosque had already been settled in the year 1877 and could not be adjudicated in the instant suit. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the lower had not committed any error, irregularity or illegality in allowing the survey. 'The argument set up by advocate SFA Naqvi that dispute in regard to Masjid already stood settled in 1877 and decree having been confirmed by this Court cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the fact that judgment of 1877 speaks of an old building, whereas in 1920 Juma Masjid was declared as a protected monument under the Act of 1904,' the court noted. The court added that if the title suit was decided in favour of the mosque committee in the year 1877, then, why had it entered into an agreement in the year 1927 subjecting the structure in dispute to the Act of 1904 as the alleged agreement does not reveal the ownership of the mosque committee and clearly noted that the structure needed to be protected in pursuance of the Act of 1904 by Archaeological Department. The court also noted this was not a case where any conversion of place of worship was taking place or any religious character of the place of worship was being changed and that the Hindu petitioners had only sought the right to access to a protected monument declared in the year 1920, under Section 18 of the Act of 1958. 'Once, it is an admitted position that the structure in question has been declared as a protected monument in 1920 and the same remained unchallenged till date, it is bound to be governed by provisions of law which existed when the notification was made and, thereafter, the laws enacted to govern such protected monument,' the court said. It added that once the revisionist himself has subjected to the Act of 1904 (Act to provide for the preservation of Ancient Monuments) and, thereafter, to 1958 (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act), he cannot take shelter of the Places of Worship Act of 1991 that aims to prevent the conversion of any place of worship and maintain the religious character as it was on August 15, 1947.
Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC rejects plea against Sambhal mosque survey: ‘No error, illegality in trial court's order'
The Allahabad High Court on Monday rejected a petition filed by the Mosque Committee of Sambhal's Shahi Jama Masjid challenging the trial court order of survey of the Mughal era mosque following claims by Hindus that it was built by destroying a temple. Upholding the November 19 order of the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Sambhal, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the High Court said: 'The court below had not committed any error, irregularity or illegality in granting leave to institute the suit before the expiry of period of notice under Section 80(2) CPC, as it was never objected by the Government or its officials defendants…' The High Court held that the suit was 'not prima facie barred' by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. '…in fact, it has been filed seeking right to access to property in dispute under Section 18 of the Act of 1958 being a protected monument,' the High Court said. 'This is not a case where any conversion of place of worship is taking place or any religious character of place of worship is being changed. Plaintiffs have only sought right to access to a protected monument declared in the year 1920 under Section 18 of the Act of 1958,' the court said, referring to The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. In an ex-parte order, the Sambhal trial court had ordered a survey of the mosque by an advocate commissioner. Five days later, on November 24, four people died of gunshot wounds metres away from the mosque as violence broke out after a survey team showed up at the mosque. The police, however, claimed the bullets were not fired by them. In its appeal, the mosque committee said the mosque has been in existence since the 16th century and has been in continuous use by Muslims as a place of worship, but the matter was rushed through in 'hot haste' after a suit was filed by eight plaintiffs who alleged that it was built after destroying a temple. 'The act of allowing application under Order XXVI Rule 9 for local investigation and appointing Advocate Commission has not caused any prejudice to the revisionist as he has right to question the same at the stage of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC before the report is confirmed and admitted as an evidence and made part of the record,' the High Court said on Monday. 'Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no interference is required in the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by court below allowing application Paper No. 3C granting leave to institute suit and application 8C for appointment of Commission for local investigation,' the order added. Last November, the Supreme Court had asked the mosque management committee to approach the Allahabad High Court against the trial court order, saying further proceedings before the trial court would follow the directions of the High Court. Underlining that 'peace and harmony must prevail', the Supreme Court bench of then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had directed the trial court to temporarily halt proceedings in the matter. PTI adds: Shri Gopal Sharma, the lawyer of the Hindu side in the Shahi Jama Masjid, said, 'The High Court has rejected it (the plea) as per the rules. We welcome the decision of the High Court. The survey ordered by the civil judge senior division of Sambhal was within the law and was appropriate.' On the other hand, the lawyer of the Muslim side, Shakeel Ahmed Warsi, said the High Court's order was according to the judicial process. The original plaintiffs in the suit claimed the right of access to the religious site at Mohalla Kot Purvi in Sambhal district. The committee alleged the suit was filed at noon on November 19 and within hours, the judge appointed a commission and directed an initial survey at the mosque, which was done on the same day and again on November 24, 2024. The court had also directed that a report of the survey be filed before it by November 29.
