To pursue the Sambhal Masjid suit, HC says

New Delhi: Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by the management committee Royal Jama Masjid, Sambhal, appointment of a lawyer commissioner to survey the mosque against a trial court order.

The court also stated that the suit is not forbidden by the places of the Puja Site (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and will be governed by the provisions of the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and the Remnants Act, 1958, as the property is a protected monument.

“Once, it is a recruitment situation that the structure under consideration has been declared as a protected monument in 1920 and is unrelated to this day, bound to be ruled by the provisions of the law, which was notified and thereafter, laws were made to control such a protected monument,” the court said.

In December last year, the Supreme Court had stopped all courts across the country from passing any effective interim or final orders on the suit disputing the character of the existing places of worship. The order was passed on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of places of Puja Act, 1991.

The petition in the Sambhal case was filed on November 19 challenging an order passed by the lower court, which, among other things, appointed a lawyer commissioner to perform photography and videographed the place to conduct a survey. The order was passed on the same day when the suit was filed.

The trial court order was passed in a suit filed by advocate Hari Shankar Jain and seven others, claiming that there is a centuries -old Sri Harihar temple dedicated to the deity Kalki at the center of Sambhal city, which is being used forcibly and illegally by the Masjid Committee. In the case, the gods claim to be a devotee of Shiva and Vishnu.

The Masjid Committee had now questioned the order, stating that there was no request to appoint a commissioner for the court, the case was filed on the same day. This, the committee said, showed “cooperation” among the parties. The committee’s counsel also indicated concerns in order to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. For example, he presented that the order of 19 November 2024 does not define the point on which the advocate commissioner needs to report, and does not correct any time period for the Commission. However, Justice Rohit Ranjan Aggarwal dismissed the petition. “Suit to move forward,” the order said.

Also read: Public well, private rights play in dustup SC such as government dispute Sambhal Masjid panel claims

‘Not covered by 1991 law’

The Masjid Committee also presented that the suit was stopped by the place of worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, as the law banned the conversion of any worship site.

Jain presented that the dispute was covered by the 1958 law, and therefore, it would not be ruled by the 1991 law. He said that the property in this suit was declared as a protected monument through a notification issued in December 1920 under the 1904 law, which was replaced by the 1958 law.

He also said that only the right to access has been claimed under Section 18 of the 1958 law, as the structure is a protected monument under Section 3 of the Protection of Ancient Monuments Act, 1904 by ASI. Section 18 says that the public will have the right to access any protected monument.

The court accepted Jain’s argument.

It was also found that the suit was not banned on Prima Facial by the provisions of the 1991 law, and that it was filed to seek the right to reach the property in the dispute under Section 18 of the 1958 Act, as it was a protected monument.

The court said that the mosque committee’s argument was “completely incorrectly, at this level”, but claimed that the committee could increase the issue by filing an application at the time of preparing the issues or before the trial court.

‘Thick layer of paint’

In February this year, ASI conducted a survey of property on the instructions of the Allahabad High Court.

The court asked the ASI to submit a report whether any whiteness or maintenance was required inside the campus.

This report, which is a part of the Allahabad High Court order, stated that the interior of the mosque was depicted with thick layers of faster colors such as golden, red, green and yellow, “hiding the original surface of the monument”.

It has been said, “Prima Feshi proves the possibility of plaintiff … as the report states that the interior of the mosque is painted with a thick layer of sharp colors hiding the original surface of golden, red, green and yellow.”

The court has now asked that the report submitted by the ASI before the court sent to the trial court.

Survey

The High Court said that the plaintiff alleged in his application that the defendants were trying to remove the artifacts, signs and symbols of the Hindu temple from the mosque, requiring a local investigation.

The management committee also alleged that two surveys were conducted – one on 19 November and the other on 24 November. After this it was said that the second survey should have been done only with permission from the court. However, the High Court found that it was the same survey that began on November 19, and was met on 24 November – so the requirement of permission was denying.

The court said that the order allowing local inquiry and appointing an advocate commissioner has not made any bias for the management committee as they had the right to question it before the report was confirmed, admitted as evidence and made part of the record.

Notice period

The Masjid Committee also challenged the order of November 19, as it allowed the lawsuit to be filed before the end of the two -month mandatory information period under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Section 80 of the CPC requires a two -month notice before sueing the government or in his official capacity against a public officer in relation to any Act. Section 80 (2) allows for the institution of the suit before the expiration of the notice period. In this case, the notice was given on 21 October, and the suit was filed on 19 November.

However, the court did not find any illegality in the order as the institution of the suit was not objected by the government or its officials before the end of the notice period, which was formed a party for the suit.

(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)

Also read: The huge change of care has begun as the Holy Hindu city. Skanda Purana is blueprint