Court admits Sunni Waqf Board’s petition with fine

Times News Network
Slug: KVT-Gyanvapi Mosque Case
Varanasi: The court of the district judge accepted the delayed petition of UP Sunni Central Waqf Board in Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute with a fine on Tuesday and fixed the next hearing on October 13.
The Sunni Waqf Board had filed a revision petition in the court on September 18. Accepting the petition, the district judge Umesh Chandra Sharma had directed the Board to deposit fine for the delay within a week. The petitioner had pleaded that as the case is related to waqf tribunal, it should be heard in Lucknow Waqf court.
In December, 2019, Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi had filed an application on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar in the court of civil judge, requesting for a survey of the entire Gyanvapi compound by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). He had filed the petition as the next friend of the deity Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar.
In January, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee had filed an objection in the court against the petition seeking survey of the entire Gyanvapi compound (premises) by ASI.
The first petition on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar was filed in the local court in 1991 seeking permission for worship in Gyanvapi.
The petitioner had contended that the Kashi Vishwanath Temple was built by Maharaja Vikramaditya about 2,050 years ago, but was razed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1664 and the temple remains were used to construct Gyanvapi masjid on the land.
The petitioner had requested the court to issue directives for the removal of the mosque from temple land and give back its possession to the temple trust. The petition contended that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act was not applicable on the suit as the mosque was constructed over a partly demolished temple and many parts of the temple exist even today.
In 1998, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee moved the high court saying the mandir-masjid dispute could not be adjudicated by a civil court as it was barred by the law. The high court stayed the proceedings in lower court which continued for the past 22 years. In February this year, the petitioners approached the lower court again with a plea to resume the hearing as the HC had not extended the stay in past six months.