Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Mathura court allows plea seeking ownership of Shahi Idgah Mosque land

Mangalore Today News Network

Mathura, May 19, 2022: The district court in Mathura Thursday allowed a plea by the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and other private parties seeking ownership of the land in which the Shahi Idgah Mosque is built. The Idgah is next to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Sthal, where the deity Krishna is believed to have been born.

 

The dispute essentially involves ownership of 13.37 acres of land which, the petitioners claim belongs to the deity Lord Shri Krishna Virajman.

The ruling by District and Sessions judge Rajiv Bharti allowing the plea means that the civil suit will now be heard by a lower court. Apart from looking into revenue records, the court will also have to decide the validity of a 1968 ‘compromise agreement’ between Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, the temple management authority which is a registered society under law and the Trust Masjid Idgah in which the temple authority conceded the contentious portion of land to the Idgah.

Now, private parties and the temple trust allege that the compromise is not valid because the trust holds the land and the temple management authority had no power to enter into a compromise.

The Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust was established in 1958.

Lawyers appearing for the Idgah argued that the society is an agent of the Trust and the head of the society is appointed by the Trust itself. The compromise agreement was also subsequently registered.

Last year, Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri along with six others had first filed a claim in the case in the court of a civil judge last year. The civil judge dismissed the plea, holding that it was not maintainable since the none of the petitioners were from Mathura who could have a valid stake in the issue.

The decision was challenged before the district court where the Trust and the temple management authority were made parties the suit.

Sri Krishna Janmasthan Trust claims it was not a party to the compromise agreement and that the society had no right to enter into a compromise on behalf of the land holder — the Trust.

Courtesy: Indian Express