The hearing in the civil suit filed before the court of civil judge, senior division, Chhaya Sharma, seeking removal of the Shahi Idgah situated adjacent to the Shri Krishna temple in Mathura has been postponed to September 30.
The suit is filed by Lucknow-based advocate Ranjana Agnihotri and seven others on behalf of the child deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman. The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Committee Of Management of Trust of Shahi Idgah have been arraigned as defendants along with Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust, Mathura, and Shri Krishna Janma Sthan Seva Sansthan.
Senior lawyer Hari Shankar Jain, representing the plaintiffs, said the court will decide the maintainability of the plea on September 30. The suit, he said, seeks cancellation of the decree passed in July 1973 by Civil Judge, Mathura, declaration, prohibitory and mandatory injunction and for removal of encroachment from the land in question. It also seeks recovery of 13.37 acres situated within the area of the temple, he added.
The suit says Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust has been nonfunctional since 1958 and has failed to protect, manage and save the property of the deity. It says the Shri Krishna Janmasansthan Seva Sansthan has overpowered the Trust and trust property and is working against the interest of the deity by fraudulently entering into a compromise with the Committee of Management Trust Masjid Idgah on October 12/17, 1968, conceding a considerable portion of property belonging to the deity and the Trust.
The suit refers to the works of historian Jadu Nath Sarkar and Italian traveller Niccola Manucci to buttress the point that a Krishna temple existed in Katra Keshav Dev at his birthplace and that it was demolished on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in January/ February 1670.
It goes on to pray that the compromise entered into Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah in 1968 and the decree passed by civil judge Mathura on July 20, 1973, in the civil suit of 1967, are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
Mr. Jain held that the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 that seeks to protect all religious structures as they existed at the time of Independence are not applicable in this case.
Coming after the Ayodhya judgment, Mr. Jain told The Hindu, “Jab jago tabhi savera...it is not a politically motivated move. We only want to correct the wrongs committed by Muslims.”
Supreme Court advocate M.R. Shamsad said “all belief systems are equal” and through this case, again, the court process is being used “to glorify one religion and vilify the other”. “This suit seeks cancellation of a decree passed many decades ago. It is also in conflict with the Places of Worship Act 1991 and constitutional norms as clarified by the Supreme Court,” said Mr. Shamshad who appeared for the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya case in the highest court. “Undoubtedly,” he said, “Ayodhya judgment is motivating factor for such litigations.”
