UP Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act is concerned only with management of temple, not property dispute: Gyanvapi mosque committee's counsel argues before Allahabad High Court
It has been argued by Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi, the court-appointed next-friend of Lord Vishweshwar, that Swayambhu Lord Visheshwar is situated in the disputed structure and as per the definition of "Temple" given under the Act of 1983, rights of the ownership of this Temple and its endowment are vested in the Deity of Sri Kashi Vishwanath, i.e., Lord Visheshwar.
Senior Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi, appearing on behalf of Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi, the committee which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, today argued before the Allahabad High Court that the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 is concerned with the management of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple alone and has no relevance in the present dispute.
The bench of Justice Prakash Padia is hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to the dispute over the ownership of the land where presently the Gyanvapi complex is situated.
It has been argued by Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi, the court-appointed next-friend of Lord Vishweshwar, that Swayambhu Lord Visheshwar is situated in the disputed structure and as per the definition of "Temple" given under the Act of 1983, rights of the ownership of this Temple and its endowment are vested in the Deity of Sri Kashi Vishwanath, i.e., Lord Visheshwar.
It is his main contention that the temple of Lord Visheshwar has been in existence from ancient times, i.e., Satyug and is in place till now under the superstructure which was built demolishing the old temple.
Today, Advocate Rastogi further argued that the Waqf Act 1995 is applicable to Muslims alone and the same is only for the resolution of disputes amongst Muslims.
He submitted that if any dispute arises between Waqf Board and a Non-Muslim, a notice is essential to be issued to the opposite party and in the present matter, no notice or opportunity was ever given to the plaintiffs in Original Suit no. 62 of 1936 (Din Mohammad and two others Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council through District Magistrate and Collector, Benaras), therefore, the property in dispute cannot be treated or said to be Waqf property.
(In 1936, Deen Mohammad and two others had filed a suit before a Varanasi Court for granting declaration that the disputed land was Waqf and was decreed that Muslims had the right to say their prayers especially ‘Alvida’ prayers and to exercise other religious and legal rights as the need and occasion arise. Limite relief was granted in their favour. It is mosque committee's claim that as epr the judgment in that suit, the disputed property has been declared a Waqf property.)
He also pressed the argument that after commencement of the Act, 1995, property which are un-registered or were registered previously, were all required to be register again, however, in the present case, the property in dispute has admittedly never been re-registered.
Therefore too, the property in dispute cannot be termed as a Waqf property, he contended.
However, Advocate Naqvi replied that the property which were registered earlier before the commencement of Act, 1995 are not required to be registered again. He placed reliance upon Section 43 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
Due to paucity of time, the arguments could not be concluded today. The matter will be next heard on July 26.
Case Title: Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid Varanasi v. Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others and connected matters