Muslim petitioners had urged the court docket to throw out the petition.
Varanasi:
A court docket right this moment agreed to listen to a bunch of Hindu ladies who need year-long entry to wish contained in the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, subsequent to the well-known Kashi Viswanath temple. The decide checked out 3 Acts and stated none bar the case of the Hindu ladies.
Listed below are 5 huge quotes from the decision:
-
The principle argument of the discovered counsel for the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs haven’t sought declaration or injunction over the property. They haven’t sought the reduction for changing the place of worship from a mosque to a temple. The plaintiffs are solely demanding proper to worship Maa Shringaar Gauri and different seen and invisible deities which had been being worshiped incessantly until 1993 and after 1993 until now every year beneath the regulation of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Due to this fact, the Locations of Worship (Particular Provisions) Act, 1991 doesn’t function as bar on the go well with of plaintiffs. The go well with of the plaintiffs is restricted and confined to the fitting of worship as a civil proper, basic proper in addition to customary and spiritual proper. I agree with the counsel for the plaintiffs.
-
The discovered counsel for the defendant has argued that the go well with of the plaintiffs is barred by Part 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 as a result of the subject material of the go well with is a Waqf property and solely Waqf Tribunal Lucknow has the fitting to resolve the go well with. Within the current case, the plaintiffs have claimed reduction that they need to be allowed to worship the deities of Maa Sringar Gauri and different Gods and Goddesses within the disputed property, however such reduction is just not coated beneath Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51 , 54, 61, 64, 67, 72, & 73 of the Waqf Act. Due to this fact, the jurisdiction of this court docket to entertain the current go well with is just not barred. Due to this fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that the bar beneath Part 85 of the Waqf Act doesn’t function within the current case as a result of the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged Waqf created on the disputed property and reduction claimed within the go well with is just not coated beneath Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 & 73 of the Waqf Act. Therefore, go well with of the plaintiffs is just not barred by Part 85 of the Waqf Act 1995.
-
The discovered counsel for the defendant argued that on the disputed property, Gyanvapi Mosque is located. In para 5 and 6 of the plaint, it has been talked about that Islamic ruler Aurangzeb acquired the temple demolished within the yr 1669 and constructed a Mosque there, which is located at plot no. 9130. Within the Khasra Bandobast, 1291 Fasali, Gyanvapi Masjid has been proven at plot no.9130. The defendant no.4 filed Khasra Bandobasti of the yr 1883-84 which is paper no. 220C. This Gyanvapi Masjid is registered as Waqf no.100, Varanasi within the gazette. Due to this fact, Gyanvapi Masjid is Waqf property and plaintiffs don’t have any proper to worship there. The discovered counsel for the defendant no.4 cited Ballabh Das & Anr. v. Nur Mohammad & Anr. AIR 1936 Privy Counsel 83, during which it was held that Khasra itself create rights as instrument of title, and it isn’t merely a historic materials the place the Khasra itself is the instrument which confers or embodies the fitting and there’s no different doc which creates title. The Khasra and the Map are an instrument of title or in any other case the direct basis of proper. In my opinion, this argument of defendant no.4 doesn’t maintain a lot water as a result of the plaintiffs are claiming solely proper to worship on the disputed property. They wish to worship Maa Sringaar Gauri and different seen and invisible deities with the competition that they worshiped there until the yr 1993 and the plaintiffs usually are not claiming possession over the disputed property. They’ve additionally not the go well with for declaration that the disputed property is a temple.
-
Additional, based on the pleadings of the plaintiffs, they had been worshiping Maa Sringaar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesh on the disputed place incessantly since a very long time until 1993. After 1993, they had been allowed to worship the above-mentioned Gods solely as soon as in a yr beneath the regulation of State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, based on plaintiffs, they worshiped Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman on the disputed place frequently even after fifteenth August, 1947. Due to this fact, The Locations of Worship (Particular Provisions) Act, 1991 doesn’t function as bar on the go well with of the plaintiffs and the go well with of plaintiffs is just not barred by Part 9 of the Act.
-
The discovered counsel for the defendant argued that the go well with of the plaintiffs is barred by the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no.29 of 1983). In my opinion, the defendant no.4 did not show that the go well with of the plaintiffs is barred by the UP Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no.29 of 1983). Part 5 of the Act declares that the possession of the temple and its endowment shall vest within the deity of Shri Kashi Vishwanath. Part 6 of the Act gives that, with impact from the appointed date, the administration and governance of the Temple and its endowments shall vest in a Board to be referred to as the Board of Trustees for Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple. In Part 4 (5) endowment contains all properties, movable or immovable, belonging to or given or endowed for the assist or upkeep or enchancment of the Temple or for the efficiency of any worship, service, ritual, ceremony or different spiritual observance within the Temple or any charity linked therewith and contains the idols put in therein, the premises of the Temple and items of property made or intend to be made for the Temple or the deities put in therein to anybody throughout the precincts of the Temple. In Part 4 (9), “Temple” has been outlined because the Temple of Adi Visheshwar, popularly often known as Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, located within the Metropolis of Varanasi which is used as a spot of public spiritual worship, and devoted to or for the advantage of or used as of proper by the Hindus, as a spot of public spiritual worship of the Jyotirlinga and contains all subordinate temples, shrines, sub-shrines and the Asthan of all different pictures and deities, mandaps, wells, tanks and different needed buildings and land appurtenant thereto and additions which can be made thereto after the appointed date. From the perusal of above-mentioned provisions of the Act, it’s clear that no bar has been imposed by the Act concerning a go well with claiming proper to worship idols put in within the endowment throughout the premises of the temple, or outdoors. Due to this fact, defendant no.4 did not show that the go well with of the plaintiffs is barred by the UP Sri Kashi Vishwanth Temple Act, 1983.