Hearing on Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Idgah Dispute in Mathura Extended to Tuesday

The hearing in the Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura was not completed on Monday. Justice Mayank Kumar Jain has scheduled the continuation of the hearing for Tuesday.

On Monday, Advocate Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, representing the Muslim side, argued that since the disputed property is Waqf property, only the Waqf Tribunal can settle this dispute. She emphasized that any aggrieved person can bring their issue before the tribunal. She further noted that the matter is restricted by the Period Act, citing a settlement reached on October 12, 1968, which was confirmed in a civil suit in 1974. According to her, the statute of limitations to challenge this agreement is three years. Since the current suit was filed in 2020, it is barred by the Limitation Act. She explained via video conferencing that, as the statue is a juristic person, the time limit would apply from the date of possession according to the contract.

Also read: Fire breaks out on 3rd floor of hospital, patients rescued

The Hindu side countered, stating that the deities were not party to the agreement or the 1974 court decree. They argued that the alleged agreement was made by Shree Janam Seva Sansthan, which lacked the authority to enter into such an agreement. The institute’s purpose was solely to manage daily activities and did not include making such agreements. Additionally, they pointed out that the deity is a minor, and any agreement against the minor’s interest is a violation.

Earlier, Reena N Singh and Rana Pratap, representing the Hindu side, contended that the nature of Waqf is to encroach on properties, change their nature, and convert them into Waqf property without rightful ownership. They argued that this practice cannot be allowed and that the Waqf Act does not apply in this case because the disputed property is not Waqf property. They claimed the property was originally a temple and was forcibly taken over for offering namaz, but the character of the land remains unchanged. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

The hearing will continue on Tuesday.