Mathura: A legal battle seems to be eminent over the Shree Krishna Janambhoomi as a civil suit has been filed in the local court here demanding removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque and handing over the 13.37 acres of land to the Janambhoomi trust.
The title suit of vexed Ayodhya issue was decided by the Supreme court on November 9 last year giving the entire land in favour of the Ramjanambhoomi, and now this civil suit could create another turmoil.
A civil suit was filed before the court of civil judge, senior division, Mathura, on behalf of child deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman, seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah, adjacent to the Shri Krishna temple complex at Mathura.
A lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri, a resident of Lucknow , filed the suit along with six others on Saturday. Advocates Hari Shankar and Vishnu Jain were others who have filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiff 'Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman' staking claim on the 13.37 acre 'Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi' land and demanding the removal of Shahi Eidgah mosque that stands adjacent to the temple.
All the three lawyers were part of the team which fought for the Ramjanambhoomi case too.
The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Committee of Management of Trust of Shahi Idgah have been arraigned as defendants in the suit.
The suit "reclaim" the entire Krishna Janmabhoomi in the temple town claiming that "every inch of the land... is sacred for the devotees of Lord Shree Krishna and the Hindu community".The birthplace of Lord Krishna lies beneath the structure raised by the trust, the suit said.
The suit claims that the trust, with the help of some Muslims, encroached upon the land belonging to Shri Krishna Janamasthan Trust and the deity, and erected a structure.
The suit seeks removal of 'encroachment' and illegal 'superstructure' raised by mosque Committee with the consent of Sunni Central Waqf Board. However, there is no mention of Places of Religious Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 which has barred courts from entertaining litigation over changing status quo of a place of religious worship post-1947.
"It is a matter of fact and history that Aurangzeb ruled over the country from 1658-1707 AD and he being a staunch follower of Islam had issued orders for demolition of a large number of Hindu religious places and temples including the temple standing at the birthplace of Lord Shree Krishna at Katra Keshav Dev, Mathura in the year 1669-70 AD," the suit said.
"The army of Aurangzeb partly succeeded to demolish the Keshav Dev Temple and the construction was forcibly raised showing the might of power and said construction was named as Idgah Mosque," it added.
"The Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan is working against the interest of the deity and devotees and fraudulently entered into a compromise with the Committee of Management of Trust Masjid Idgah (Trust) in 1968 conceding a considerable portion of property belonging to the deity and the trust," the suit said.
The civil judge, Mathura, passed a judgement on the suit regarding the alleged "compromise between the Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Trust" on July 20, 1973.
The present suit has now prayed for "cancelling this judgement".It was also claimed that Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sansthan, which is the governing body of the temple complex, entered into an illegal compromise with the Shahi Idgah trust with a view to grab the property in question.
Reacting to the new development, BJP leader Vinay Katiyar said Mathura and Kashi need to be freed too after Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya. "If required a movement will be started to remove Eidgah encroachment and reclaim the Krishna Janmabhoomi," he added.
Meanwhile, Haji Mehboob called the civil suit absurd and cited that the Supreme Court has categorically said except the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case, no plea will be filed and it will not be heard.
"It's absurd as the Supreme Court has already said it in clear words that apart from the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case, no one will be allowed to file any suit regarding any such matter be it Kashi, Mathura or in any part of the country. The government has itself said that they won't interfere," he said.These issues are raised wherever there's an election in the country, he added. (UNI)
