Mathura. The case of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute of Mathura was heard in the Supreme Court on Friday. Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust had filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding a scientific survey. After the hearing, the Supreme Court has rejected the petition. The court said that this is a matter of the High Court, it should be tried there. The court said that the High Court is hearing all the questions of transfer of cases, we will not interfere in the matter right now.
Double bench heard this case
Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust filed a special leave petition in the apex court against the decision given by the Allahabad High Court. The lawyer in the Supreme Court in this case is Sarthak Chaturvedi. Bench hearing of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Shudhanshu Dhulia.
The petition said that Masjid Idgah was allegedly constructed after the demolition of Hindu temples. The petitioner argues that such a construction cannot be considered a mosque. The Trust is arguing against the validity of the agreement signed in 1968, calling it a sham and fraud.
The petitioner alleged that the respondents, which include notable institutions like Shahi Masjid Idgah Management Committee. Have been involved in damaging property. Especially those elements which have religious and historical significance for Hindus.
Trust President Ashutosh Pandey claims that the respondents have damaged the pillars and symbols of the temple and used generators. Due to which the walls and pillars have suffered further damage. He has also expressed concern over the prayers and other activities taking place on the campus. The petitioner has also raised concerns about discrepancies in property registration. They argue that the land cannot be officially registered under the name ‘Idgah’. Stating that its tax is being collected under the alias of Katra Keshav Dev, Mathura.
There should be a survey of Shahi Eidgah like Gyanvapi survey.
Supreme Court lawyer Sarthak Chaturvedi said that the petitioner demands a local inquiry into the identity, location and measurement of the disputed land. In which a scientific survey is needed to authenticate the claims made by both the parties. The petitioner requests that like the Gyanvapi survey, this site should also be surveyed so that the historical and architectural importance of this site will be known. In the petition of the petitioner, not only permission has been sought to challenge the decision of the High Court, but also a request has been made to impose an interim ex-parte stay in the SLP.