Gyanvapi Case: 'The decision will be taken if it becomes clear whose possession it was before 1993', High Court said this big thing in Vyas ji's basement case

Posted on 8th Feb 2024 by rohit kumar

The fact of who occupied the basement of Vyas ji located in the Gyanvapi complex of Varanasi before 1993 has become important. Allahabad High Court says that a decision will be taken once it becomes clear who was in possession before 1993. Even after two and a half hours of debate in the bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Aggarwal on Wednesday, the hearing on the appeal challenging the order of District Judge Varanasi related to puja remained incomplete.

 

Now the hearing will be held on February 12 from 10 am. The advocate of the Anjuman Intejamia Masajid Committee said that the certified copy of the order of the District Judge has been received. The court directed me to file it within 24 hours.

 

The lawyers of the temple side presented their side

As soon as the hearing started, advocate Harishankar Jain from the temple side and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain present in the court presented their side through video conferencing. He declared the District Judge's order correct. Said, the plaintiff has physical possession of the basement of Vyasji. On 28 November 2014, on behalf of the administrative officials and the plaintiff, the goods were taken out from the basement by opening the lock with the key in the presence of Jitendra Nath Vyas. The material for reading Ramcharitmanas was kept on November 5, 2016. One key remained with Vyas and the other with the administration. However, this matter is not on the file of the trial court. Ramayana was recited.

 

Also Read: Abu Dhabi Mandir: Mahant Swami Maharaj arrives in Abu Dhabi to inaugurate the BAPS Hindu Temple, PM Modi will attend the ceremony

 

The court passed the order on January 31

The temple side said that Section 151 and Section 152 of CrPC will be seen together, the court has inherent power in this. If something has been left out while giving the order under Section 152, then the court can pass the order on its motion or after applying. After drawing the attention of the plaintiff's advocate, the District Judge's court passed the missed order on January 31. This order was passed after hearing both sides. The opposition did not raise any objection. Ramayana was being recited in the basement for 68 years. It was stopped after barricading in the year 1993. Still, the plaintiff has been in possession. Jain said the order of the district court is legal. Passed under legal authority.

 

The lawyer of the mosque side said this

On the other hand, senior advocates SFA Naqvi and Puneet Gupta, on behalf of the mosque, termed the order of the District Judge as beyond the jurisdiction. He said that the District Judge had given an order against the legal process, and it should be canceled. Naqvi said the District Magistrate is an ex-officio member of the committee formed on the orders of the Supreme Court in the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust law case. He has been appointed receiver and ordered to do contradictory work. This is also a violation of the court order.

 

Proof of possession not given by mosque side

The lawyer for the mosque side said in the court that the District Judge himself had not given the order of January 31 and no application was given before him to issue such an order. Therefore the order is illegal. The right of possession will be decided in the trial. The District Judge has accepted half the case by giving him the right to worship, he has no legal right to do so. The counsel for the mosque side admitted that while passing the order of January 31, both sides were heard, but said that the procedure of Section 152 was not followed. No evidence of possession was given by the mosque side.

 

The court said Section 151 and Section 152 will be considered together. In this, the court has the right to give orders on correction of mistakes or missed demands. She can give it on her own or request. Citing the Deen Mohammad case and the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust Act case, Naqvi said that the District Judge has violated resjudicata by giving the order of January 17.

 

Information sought regarding the barricading order in 1993

The court sought information from Advocate General Ajay Kumar Mishra regarding the order regarding the installation of barricades in 1993. The Advocate General said, 'This has been done for security reasons. The government is committed to maintaining law and order.

 

Also Read: Gyanvapi Case: What was the religious character of the premises on 15 August 1947? Therefore survey of basements is necessary; the Plaintiff's argument