On Thursday, Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi continued his argument on behalf of the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir and other Hindu parties, in a suit seeking the removal of the Gyanvapi Mosque and restoration of the original land to Hindus. Before the bench led by Justice Prakash Padia, Advocate Rastogi challenged the U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board’s claim that the disputed property upon which the Gyanvyapi Masjid stands today is a Waqf property.
Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi who has been appointed as ‘the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar’ argued on behalf of the deity that the Waqf Act is only applicable to Muslims. Rastogi also pointed out that the temple or the lord (Vishweshwar) had never been served any notice regarding Waqf Board’s alleged claim that the property is a declared Waqf property. He argued that in the absence of such notice, the Act will not be applicable to the other party.
Challenging the Waqf board’s claims
Rastogi argues that as to how the property of a person who does not have an interest in Waqf or is not benefited from Waqf can be attached.#kashi #mosque #temple #Varanasi #kashivishwanath
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) April 28, 2022
Quoting from Section 6 (1) of the Waqf Act, 1954, Rastogi said, “(In the act), the term “any person interested therein”, includes any person to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him. How the property of a person who does not have an interest in Waqf or is not benefited from Waqf (in this case the Lord) can be attached?” Rastogi asked. He argued that the property belonging to non-Muslims cannot be attached without the service of notice.
Further, Advocate Rastogi argued that according to section 5 of the Waqf act, 1995, if the property of Gyanwyapi Mosque is to be assumed to be registered as a Waqf property, it needed to be registered again. Since there is no document of record to show the registration of the property as Waqf, the argument by the Waqf board does not hold much water. “The Sunni Waqf Board had illegally and arbitrarily registered the property of the temple as the property of the mosque, hence it is void,” he asserted.
Adv. Rastogi intervenes and says, “Some people call the disputed property a mosque, some people call it a temple, how will it be decided?? The religious character of the property will be considered for this.”
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) April 28, 2022
#kashi #mosque #temple #Varanasi #kashivishwanath
On Hindu religious nature of the disputed property
Furthermore, Advocate Ajay Kumar Singh said that there was no permission ever granted to offer Namaz in the temple. Rastogi interjected and clarified the issue of whether to call the land a mosque or a temple. “Some people call the disputed property a mosque, some people call it a temple, how will it be decided? – The religious character of the property will be considered for this,” he ascertained. He observed that the religious character of the temple was never changed, only the structure of one part of it has changed.
Rastogi then referred to the judgment in the appeal filed in 1937, filed by one Deen Mohammad for a granting declaration that the disputed land was Waqf without impleading any member of the Hindu community. The applicant had sought a declaration that he and other Muslims had the right to pray specially Alvida prayers and to exercise other religious and legal rights on the disputed property. The judgement given by the lower court had held that Hindu deities including ‘Gauri Ji’, ‘Bir Bhadeshwar Ji’ and ‘Abhi Mukteshwar’ were recognized to be residing inside the disputed property.
Rastogi argues: “If you look at all the evidence and facts, then Gyanvapi Masjid is surrounded by boundary wall on all sides which is much older than the Masjid, it is part of boundary wall temple.”#kashi #mosque #temple #Varanasi #kashivishwanath
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) April 28, 2022
“The boundary wall that surrounds the Gyanwyapi Masjid from all the sides is much older than the Masjid and was earlier part of the boundary wall temple,” he further noted. After hearing the arguments from Advocate Rastogi, the bench decided to adjourn the hearing till May 9, 2022.
