Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Allahabad High Court today rejected Mosque Committee's plea against the trial court's order passed on November 19 directing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit which claimed that the mosque was built after destroying a temple.

With this, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has upheld the trial court's survey order. It also added that the Hindu Plaintiffs is prima facie not barred.

The Trial Court's order was passed on a suit filed by eight plaintiffs, including Mahant Rishiraj Giri, who claimed that the Sambhal Mosque was built in 1526 after demolishing a Hindu temple that stood there.

It was the case of the Mosque committee before the #AllahabadHighCourt that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had passed the survey order hastily, without issuing notice to them. The survey of the mosque was undertaken on the same day (Nov 19), and again on Nov 24, 2024.

On the other hand, in their suit, the Hindu Plaintiffs have claimed that the Mosque in question was originally the site of an ancient temple (Hari Har Temple) dedicated to Kalki, the last avatar of Lord Vishnu. In 1526, on the orders of Mughal Ruler Babar, the temple was partly demolished and converted into a mosque.

The trial court proceedings were effectively stayed by the Supreme Court in November last year. The apex court had directed that the trial court shall not proceed further with the matter until the Mosque Committee's petition against the survey order is listed before the High Court.

During the case hearing in the HC, the ASI had submitted its counter stating that the 'Juma Mosque' has been notified as a Centrally Protected Monument. After independence, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) came into effect, and its provisions are now applicable to such monuments and nowhere is the mosque described as a religious place in official records.

The ASI has further argued that there is no historical, archaeological, or revenue evidence supporting the term 'Shahi Masjid.' Its counter adds that under Section 5 of the AMASR Act, the ASI is empowered to acquire rights for the preservation of protected monuments, and Section 4 also authorises the Central Government to declare any monument of historical importance as protected, thereby any unauthorised claims of ownership or control (referring to Masjid Committee's claims) have no meaning.