Lakshagriha Case: UP Court Dismisses 53-Year-Old Lawsuit Over Baghpat's Ancient Mound

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

On behalf of defendant it was argued that the area Mukim Khan claimed as a Dargah and graveyard housed a Shiva temple and Lakhamandap, the remains of which were still present at Lakshagriha.

 

After a 53-year legal battle, a Baghpat Court passed a landmark verdict on Monday (February 5) regarding the ancient mound in Baranawa village, Baghpat district, Uttar Pradesh. The court ruled in favor of defendant Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj, designating the ancient mound as Lakshagriha (Lakhamandap). Notably, the court rejected the claim made by the Muslim side asserting the presence of a Dargah and a graveyard on the historical site.

In 1970, Mukim Khan, a resident of Barnawa village in Baghpat, initiated legal proceedings by filing a suit where he made Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj as the defendant and alleged that the ancient mound in Barnawa was a dargah and graveyard belonging to Sheikh Badruddin and Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj, an outsider to the district, aimed to demolish it with the intention of constructing a significant Hindu pilgrimage site in its place.

On behalf of the defendant Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj, it was claimed that the location described by Mukim Khan as a Dargah and graveyard actually housed a Shiva temple and Lakhamandap and the remains of these structures were still existing at Lakshagriha. Additionally, it was highlighted that a portion of the mound's land had been acquired by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), while the remaining land was under the ownership of the Shri Gandhi Dham Committee.

While tabling his verdict, Civil Judge Junior Division-I Shivam Dwivedi took into account a declaration made in 1920 by the then government that under Section 3(3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the mound had been declared Lakhamandap. 

Court further noted that there was one other subsequent order by the SDO, Sardhana dated March 4, 1965, in which disputed land Khasra No. 3377/1 had been stated to be Lakhamandap and Khasra No. 3377/2 had been stated to be forest land. 

Case Title: Mukeem Khan and Others v. Krishnadutt @Swami ji and Others