Latest news with #AncientMonumentsandArchaeologicalSitesandRemainsAct
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bombay HC grants interim protection from demolition to over 200 people residing in vicinity of Malegaon fort
The Bombay High Court on Friday granted interim protection from demolition to over 200 people residing near the vicinity of a fort, an archeological site at Malegaon in Nashik district, who were sent eviction notices by the tehsildar. The HC granted interim protection from coercive action to the petitioners pending their plea challenging the government resolution seeking eviction of people residing near the site. The court also asked the state government's lawyer Kavita N Solunke to file an affidavit in reply to the plea. A vacation bench of Justices Gauri V Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan was on May 30 hearing a plea by Mohammad Rajjab Khan Mohammad Khan and Shakeel Ahmed Mohammad Israil, residents of Killa (fort) area at Raviwar Ward in Malegaon, who claimed to have filed it on behalf of themselves and over 200 other residents, challenging fresh eviction notice, apprehending demolition. The petitioners, through advocate Manisha Desai, claimed while a gymkhana and a school are already running inside the archeological site, no action has been taken against them. However, arbitrary action has been initiated only against the occupants who are outside the archaeological site. She submitted that the petitioners were informed by the tehsildar that a fresh order for eviction and demolition had been issued against them. The petitioners whose residential structures are on land belonging to the Nashik district Collector claimed the houses have been existing for over 40 years. The petitioners claimed that after they learnt from a news report that the encroachments in the fort will be removed, they came to know from the Collector's office that the state culture and tourism department on January 20 had under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959 had issued a Government Resolution (GR). The GR ordered demolition of unauthorised structures on 47 forts protected by the central government and 62 protected by the archeological department, across the state. A committee headed by the Collector was to be constituted and submit a report, and between February and May this year, the encroachments were to be demolished. The petitioners were informed that their structures are also liable to be removed, after which they approached the HC challenging it. The vacation bench noted that on May 8, a coordinate bench, while hearing another plea relating to similarly placed over 100 petitioners, had directed that no coercive measures be taken against their structures and if at all it is to be taken, due procedure of law by issuing showcause notice be followed and same interim protection from eviction and demolition to those petitioners was extended through May 29 order. On May 30, the bench noted that facts of the present case are similar to facts of the matter in which interim protection was already granted. The court asked Solunke to take instructions about the same and said that the copy of fresh order of eviction be supplied to petitioners' lawyer.
Hans India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
'Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 designed to capture properties', petitioners in Supreme Court
New Delhi: The petitioners challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the contentious amendments introduced to the waqf law are designed to "capture" properties through an executive and non-judicial process. 'The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act has been framed for purposes of 'protection of waqfs', but, in reality, it is designed to capture waqf through a process which is non-judicial and executive,' submitted senior advocate Kapil Sibal before a bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih. Explaining the nature of waqf properties, Sibal said that it is an endowment to Allah (the god) by private individuals, incapable of further transfer in line with the principle that 'once a waqf, always a waqf'. However, under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, if an encroacher raises a dispute, the waqf property will lose its very nature till the dispute is decided, he added. 'The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act is a complete departure from the past legislations on waqf. It is for the first time, under the 2025 Amendment Act, in case of non-registration, the property will not be regarded as property,' contended Sibal, adding that though previous legislations required registration of waqfs, but did not mandate any adverse consequences in cases of non-registration except for removal of mutawalli. The senior counsel highlighted that legislations like the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, etc., were introduced for better protection of waqf properties but did not interfere with their waqf status. 'For example, say, Jama Masjid or any other place of worship. The government can say it intends to preserve the property and declare the property an 'ancient monument'. But the property won't lose its character, and it doesn't mean that you can go and pray there. No ownership was transferred to the government. You couldn't stop the user of the waqf property for the purposes of dedication,' said Sibal. Sibal argued that before the enactment of the recent amendment to the Waqf Act, the right to religious worship was preserved even under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. He reiterated that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is meant for 'complete takeover' of the waqf properties, including ownership. He further questioned the validity of the recently introduced provision providing the requirement of five years of practice as a Muslim before the creation of a waqf. 'This requirement is per se unconstitutional. This (creation of waqf) is a right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution,' argued Sibal. He highlighted that the majority of members in the Central Waqf Council could be non-Muslims if the Union government so chooses under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. 'The balance of convenience is in our favour, and irreparable injury will be done if these provisions are activated. If I cannot create a waqf, unless I satisfy the 5-year Muslim requirement, it is an immediate injury and irreparable,' submitted Sibal. The CJI Gavai-led Bench is hearing the arguments of the parties on the question of the interim stay on the implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In an earlier hearing, after the apex court hinted at passing a stay order, the Union government had assured the top court that it would not de-notify provisions related to 'Waqf by user' or include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board. It had granted a week to the Centre and state governments and the Waqf Boards to file their preliminary reply. The apex court decided to treat five writ petitions as lead cases, apart from ordering the registry to rename the cause titles of the proceedings as "In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025". The petitioners have contended that the amendments introduced to the Waqf Act are discriminatory and infringed upon the fundamental rights of the Muslim community. Conversely, six BJP-ruled states have backed the Union government, supporting the amendments as constitutionally valid and necessary. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, received presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 after it was passed in both Houses of Parliament following intense debate. The Centre, in a preliminary affidavit, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the petitions, arguing that the impugned law does not infringe upon constitutional guarantees.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Allahabad HC clears way for Sambhal mosque survey: Here's what court said in its verdict
PRAYAGRAJ: Allahabad high court dismissed on Monday the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid committee's petition challenging a Nov 19, 2024 trial court order directing an advocate commissioner to survey the structure, the subject of a suit claiming that the mosque was built in 1526 after demolishing a temple, reports Rajesh Kumar Pandey. While upholding the trial court's survey order, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal vacated the interim stay on the Hindu plaintiffs ' suit. The mosque committee had asked for the suit to be dismissed on the ground that the Hindu side's claim to the site was prima facie barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The legislation prohibits conversion of any place of worship and mandates maintaining the religious character of any such site that existed on Aug 15, 1947. HC: Plaintiffs only seeking right to access to Sambhal site This is not a case where any conversion of place of worship is taking place or the religious character is being changed. The plaintiffs have only sought right to access to a protected monument, declared in 1920 under Section 18 of Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the 45-page judgment states. In its petition, the mosque committee contended that the civil judge (junior division) ordered the survey "hastily" and "without issuing notice". Based on the Nov 19 directive, a survey was conducted that very day and another one on Nov 24. Later that month, SC stayed proceedings in the trial court until the mosque committee's petition against the survey order was heard by an HC bench. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) said in its submission to the bench that the mosque had been designated as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. This effectively means that its status is governed by preservation laws rather than religious classification. ASI also mentioned that nowhere in official records was the mosque described as a religious place. The Hindu plaintiffs contend that the disputed Sambhal mosque stands at what used to be site of an ancient Harihar temple dedicated to Kalki, last avatar of Vishnu. The suit claims in 1526, on orders of Mughal emperor Babar, the temple was partially demolished and a mosque built over it.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Allahabad high court upholds trial court order, backs Sambhal mosque survey
PRAYAGRAJ: Allahabad high court dismissed on Monday the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid committee's petition challenging a Nov 19, 2024 trial court order directing an advocate commissioner to survey the structure, the subject of a suit claiming that the mosque was built in 1526 after demolishing a temple, reports Rajesh Kumar Pandey. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now While upholding the trial court's survey order, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal vacated the interim stay on the Hindu plaintiffs ' suit. The mosque committee had asked for the suit to be dismissed on the ground that the Hindu side's claim to the site was prima facie barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The legislation prohibits conversion of any place of worship and mandates maintaining the religious character of any such site that existed on Aug 15, 1947. HC: Plaintiffs only seeking right to access to Sambhal site This is not a case where any conversion of place of worship is taking place or the religious character is being changed. The plaintiffs have only sought right to access to a protected monument, declared in 1920 under Section 18 of Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the 45-page judgment states. In its petition, the mosque committee contended that the civil judge (junior division) ordered the survey "hastily" and "without issuing notice". Based on the Nov 19 directive, a survey was conducted that very day and another one on Nov 24. Later that month, SC stayed proceedings in the trial court until the mosque committee's petition against the survey order was heard by an HC bench. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) said in its submission to the bench that the mosque had been designated as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act , 1958. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This effectively means that its status is governed by preservation laws rather than religious classification. ASI also mentioned that nowhere in official records was the mosque described as a religious place. The Hindu plaintiffs contend that the disputed Sambhal mosque stands at what used to be site of an ancient Harihar temple dedicated to Kalki, last avatar of Vishnu. The suit claims in 1526, on orders of Mughal emperor Babar, the temple was partially demolished and a mosque built over it.
New Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Police hold flag march in UP's Sambhal after HC upholds survey of Shahi Jama Masjid
SAMBHAL: Hours after the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition challenging a court-ordered survey of the 500-year old Shahi Jama Masjid, the Sambhal police on Monday patrolled key roads of the district in a flag march meant to reinforce calm. Superintendent of Police (SP) Krishan Kumar Bishnoi, who led the flag march, warned of strict action if anyone tried to protest "unlawfully" or circulate "provocative" messages. Bishnoi told reporters that the flag march is part of the police's daily patrolling and has been stepped up in view of the Supreme Court's decision relating to Sambhal. "Police are out on the streets and monitoring cyberspace to ensure no one takes the law into their own hands. Anyone who agrees or disagrees with the court order is free to file an appeal. But if someone tries to protest unlawfully or circulate provocative messages, strict action will follow," he said. The SP said court battles must be fought in courtrooms, not on the streets. "Our cyber commandos are tracking social media activity. The cyber police station is watching to make sure no irresponsible comments are posted that could hurt religious sentiments," the SP added. On Monday, the Allahabad High Court upheld a civil judge's order of November 19 last year, appointing a court commissioner to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid amid a dispute with the adjacent Harihar temple, ruling that both the suit and the commission were maintainable. The masjid committee had argued the survey was illegal, particularly a second inspection carried out on November 24, which was protested by the locals, resulting in alleged police firing, which killed five Muslim youth, including a minor. Though the police denied allegations of firing at the protesters, locals including the mosque committee chairman, have accused the police of using country-made pistols to fire at the crowd. The opposition parties have alleged a "conspiracy" in the police action against the protesters. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said the case concerned access to a monument protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and did not involve "conversion of a place of worship." Proceedings in the civil suit had been stayed by the Supreme Court on November 29 with a directive to the state to maintain peace. Monday's high court order clears the way for the lower court to resume hearing, subject to any further appeal.
