Tejo Mahalaya Suit: Allahabad High Court Seeks Responses on Plea for Court-Supervised Taj Mahal Survey

The Allahabad High Court on Monday issued notice on a writ petition challenging orders of the Agra courts refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a survey of the Taj Mahal in connection with a long-pending civil suit claiming that the monument is an ancient Hindu temple known as "Tejo Mahalaya".

Court sought responses from the respondents in the matter and fixed the case for further hearing.

The writ petition has been filed by Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman through next friend Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, along with four others, against the Union of India, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and other respondents.

Advocate Hari Shankar Jain appeared virtually before the court today and was assisted by Advocate Saumya Srivastava.

The petition assails orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, and the Additional District Judge, Agra, declining the plaintiffs' request for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph and videograph the disputed premises.

According to the petitioners, a declaratory suit instituted in 2015 is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, seeking a declaration that the Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya temple exists within the Taj Mahal complex and that Hindus are entitled to perform worship there.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to document the physical features of the monument. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient revenue records and that there were discrepancies regarding the description of the property. A revision against that order was later dismissed by the Additional District Judge as not maintainable.

Challenging these orders before the high court, the petitioners contend that the lower courts failed to appreciate that the identity of the monument is undisputed and that a commission was necessary to place its existing physical features before the trial court. They argue that they cannot independently photograph or videograph the ASI-protected monument and that the structural features relied upon in the suit cannot be effectively proved through oral evidence alone.

The writ petition also seeks setting aside of the Agra courts' orders and a direction to the trial court to decide the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on its merits. Pending disposal of the petition, the plaintiffs have additionally sought a direction to the ASI to undertake photography of the monument from inside and outside in the presence of the petitioners and place the photographs before the court.

The civil suit forms part of the continuing litigation in which the plaintiffs claim that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple named "Tejo Mahalaya" and seek recognition of worship rights at the site. The ASI has consistently maintained that the Taj Mahal is a centrally protected monument and has opposed similar claims in previous proceedings.

Case Title: Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya Temple And 5 Others vs Union Of India And 3 Others

Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Hearing Date: July 6, 2026