Latest news with #ArcheologicalSurveyofIndia
Deccan Herald
a day ago
- General
- Deccan Herald
Karnataka HC tells UDD to restrict officers from allowing new constructions around protected monuments
If any permission is to be granted in tune with the statute, such permission shall precede a no objection from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI).
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC rejects plea against Sambhal mosque survey
The Allahabad high court on Monday dismissed a petition by the Sambhal mosque committee challenging a controversial trial court decision last year that ordered a survey of the Mughal-era mosque that triggered violence and resulted in the deaths of four people. Tension has simmered in the Uttar Pradesh town since November last year when a civil court directed the advocate commissioner to conduct a survey of the Mughal-era Shahi Jama Masjid on a suit filed by Hindu groups that the Islamic structure was built after demolishing a temple. In a 45-page judgment, the high court rejected the claim of the mosque committee that the Hindu groups' petition was prima facie barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which locks the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. '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 Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958,' the high court said. 'I find that court below had not committed any error, irregularity or illegality in granting leave to institute the suit …Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Suit to proceed. No order as to cost,' Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal. The decision marks a setback for the mosque committee that argues that the Hindu petition violates the 1991 law. Last December, the Supreme Court issued a nationwide directive restraining all courts from entertaining fresh suits or passing orders to survey mosques to determine whether temple structures lie beneath them, till the top court adjudicates on challenges to the Places of Worship Act. 'We respect the high court order. If the legal committee advises further action, it will be considered. We will comment further only after reviewing the high court's order,' mosque panel's counsel advocate Shakeel Warsi said. Advocate Gopal Sharma, who represented the Hindu side, welcomed the ruling. 'We welcome the honourable high court's decision. The petition was bound to be dismissed as per legal survey ordered by the civil judge senior division of Sambhal was within the law and was appropriate.' To be sure, if the HC had ruled in favour of the Muslim side then the survey report would have been scrapped. Located in the heart of the city in the Kotgarvi locality, the Shahi Jama Masjid is an important religious and historical site for the Muslim community. It is believed to have been constructed around the 16th century by Mir Hindu Beg, a Mughal general. The mosque is a protected monument notified on December 22, 1920. It also figures on Archeological Survey of India's website (Moradabad division) in the list of centrally protected monuments. On November 19, a civil court ordered a survey of the mosque on a petition by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, claiming that it was built after razing a Hindu temple in 1529. An 'initial survey' of the mosque was held the same day. Jain is also a petitioner in the Gynavapi Masjid case, and it was on his plea that a Varanasi court on April 8, 2022 ordered a controversial survey of the mosque complex abutting the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. On November 24, four people were killed and dozens injured as protesters clashed with police after a second inspection of the mosque that turned violent. The case resonated in Parliament and the Supreme Court, and was one of the prominent cases where the top court clamped a moratorium on proceedings. The results of the survey were submitted bycourt-appointed advocate commissioner Ramesh Raghav in a sealed packet to the court of civil judge (senior division) on January 2. The Sambhal case is part of a flurry of pleas over the past three years that argue that Islamic holy sites were built after demolishing temples, and therefore should be replaced. Other cases include the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura – both adjoining famous temples. On November 29, the top court ordered the Sambhal court to halt proceedings in the case over the mosque and its survey while directing the UP government to maintain peace and harmony in the violence-hit town. Then, on December 12, the Supreme Court issued a nationwide directive restraining all courts from entertaining fresh suits or passing orders to survey mosques to determine whether temple structures lie beneath them. The directive came from a special bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, which clarified that trial courts cannot 'overreach' the Supreme Court while it adjudicates on challenges to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Places of Worship Act was enacted to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The law expressly prohibits altering the religious nature of sites and includes stringent penalties for violations, though it exempted the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya due to ongoing litigation at the time. Despite the significance of the issue, the matter had seen little progress in the Supreme Court over the last two years. During the hearing, the Muslim side argued that the mosque is an ASI-protected monument and the court could not have ordered its survey. In its submissions, the Hindu side said that the disputed structure stood on a government land and the court was within its powers to order a survey. The court, however, refused to interfere with the trial court's November order on the survey. '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 ,' the high court said.
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Sambhal mosque case: Allahabad HC reserves judgment
Prayagraj: on Tuesday reserved its judgment in the dispute related to and Harihar Mandir at Sambhal in Uttar judgment was reserved by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal after hearing counsels for the masjid committee and the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) as well as Hari Shanker Jain, the plaintiff in the on May 5, the ASI counsel had filed his counter-affidavit on which Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal granted time to the masjid committee to file a rejoinder and fixed May 13 for next masjid committee had filed a revision petition challenging an order of the Sambhal civil court which had directed the ASI survey through an advocate high court earlier had stayed the further trial court proceedings of the original suit till the next date pending before the district court at Sambhal, where the Hindu side plaintiff had sought the right of access to , which is allegedly where the Jami Masjid is situated at Mohalla Kot Purvi in Sambhal district. Now, as per direction of the court, this stay will continue till the delivery of judgment. In the petition, it has been alleged that the suit was filed in the afternoon of Nov 19 last year and within hours, the judge appointed an advocate commissioner and directed him to carry out an initial survey at the mosque, which was done on the same day, i.e. on Nov 19, and again on Nov 24. Hari Shanker Jain and seven others have filed a suit before the court of civil judge senior division, Sambhal on the plea that Shahi Eidgah mosque was built after demolishing a temple at Sambhal.
Time of India
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
ASI files survey report on Sambhal mosque in Allahabad HC, next hearing set for May 13
PRAYAGRAJ: The Archeological Survey of India (ASI) on Monday filed a survey report through pen drive before the Allahabad High Court in the dispute relating to Jama Masjid and Harihar temple at Sambhal. Besides, a hard copy of the counter affidavit filed by ASI was supplied to the revisionist counsel in the court. A counter affidavit on behalf of the state government was also served to the revisionist's counsel. While taking the hard copies of the counter affidavits filed by ASI and the state government on record, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal directed that the case be put up as fresh on May 13 for next hearing. Earlier, the high court had stayed the trial court proceedings of original suit till next date pending before the district court at Sambhal, where Hindu side plaintiff had sought declaration to the effect that they have the right of access into Shri Hari Har Temple, which is Jami Masjid situated in Sambhal. Now, according to the court's direction, this stay will continue till the next date of the listing. The present civil revision was filed after the order of the Supreme Court in this regard challenging the entire proceedings as well as maintainability of suit before Sambhal district court . In the petition, it has been alleged that the suit was filed on Nov 19, 2024, and within hours, the judge appointed an advocate commissioner and directed him to carry out an initial survey of the mosque, which was done on the same day, Nov 19, and again on Nov 24, 2024. Hari Shankar Jain and seven others have filed a suit before the court of civil judge senior division, Sambhal, on the plea that Shahi Eidgah mosque was built after demolishing a temple at Sambhal. The local court ordered the survey by an advocate commissioner on Nov 19 accepting a plea from the Hindu side to the case that the mosque was built by Mughal emperor Babur in 1526 after demolishing Harihar Mandir in Sambhal.
Hindustan Times
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC adjourns hearing on plea seeking ASI survey of Gyanvapi wazukhana
The Allahabad high court on Monday adjourned hearing on a plea seeking an ASI survey of the wazukhana (ablution pond) area in the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi. The court set July 4 as the next date of hearing after being informed of an interim Supreme Court order restraining courts across the country from passing directions on lawsuits relating to religious places. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed the order in a petition filed by Rakhi Singh who is one of the plaintiffs in the Shringar Gauri worshipping suit 2022, which is presently pending before the Varanasi's district court. The petition in the high court has challenged a Varanasi district judge's order refusing to direct the Archeological Survey of India to undertake a survey of the wazukhana area except the structure the Hindu side claims to be a Shivlinga and the Muslim side describes as a fountain in the Gyanvapi mosque complex. In her application before the Varanasi court, which was rejected on October 21, 2023, the primary contention raised by Rakhi Singh was that the survey of the wazukhana, excluding the Shivlinga, is necessary to ascertain the religious character of the property in question (Gyanvapi precincts). However, while rejecting her application, the district judge had observed in his order that the apex court vide its order dated May 17, 2022 had ordered to duly protect the area where the Shivalinga is stated to have been found and therefore it is not proper to direct the ASI to survey the area as it would violate the Supreme Court's order. In the order dated October 21, the district judge also noted that the particular area was also excluded from the ambit of the ASI survey ordered by his court vide an order dated July 21, 2023, passed in the 2022 suit. In her revision plea, petitioner Rakhi Singh has stressed that the survey of the wazukhana area is necessary in the interest of justice and it shall benefit the plaintiff(s) and defendants alike and come in aid of the court to arrive at a just decision in the 2022 suit. A scientific survey of the complex has already been conducted by the ASI and the report submitted to the Varanasi district judge. The survey was conducted in accordance with a July 2023 order of the district judge to determine if the mosque was built over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple.
