September 21, 2026 08:00 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
IIT Bombay protests erupt after student’s death; authorities meet students over 18 demands | Mithu Mukherjee, the vivacious 70s heroine with a flirtatious charm, passes away | Zelenskyy speaks to Trump, announces New York meeting amid Russia-Ukraine conflict | Italy PM Meloni announces big school plan: Burqa, hijab ban and cap on foreign students | Arvind Kejriwal, family ‘missing’ from Delhi voter list, claims Aam Aadmi Party | ‘No UPI above ₹2,000?’ Ghaziabad traders put up ‘cash only’ hoardings | Trump signs Russia sanctions bill: India faces fresh 100% tariff threat over Moscow oil | Caught using ChatGPT for exam answers, IIT Bombay student dies by suicide; students protest | Congress' Nandigram candidate arrested after Mamata's support amid TMC symbol row; Bengal bypoll gets chaotic | Gurugram murder shocker: Groom-to-be leaves sisters at Delhi restaurant to meet ex-colleague, found dead days later
Photo courtesy: UNI

Krishna Janmabhoomi: Allahabad HC dismisses Muslim side's plea to reject Hindu side suits seeking mosque removal

| @indiablooms | Aug 01, 2024, at 11:52 pm

Prayagraj (UP): The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition by the Muslim side challenging the admissibility of 18 lawsuits filed by Hindus seeking the removal of a mosque from a 13.37-acre complex it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple, media reports said.

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain delivered the verdict, nearly two months after reserving judgment on June 6.

The court ruled that the lawsuits filed by Hindu worshippers and the deity are not barred by the Limitation Act or the Places of Worship Act, among other laws, according to an India Today report.

This decision counters the main argument of the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura), which claimed that the pending lawsuits were prohibited by the Places of Worship Act 1991, the Limitation Act 1963, and the Specific Relief Act 1963.

Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, representing the Muslim side, argued that the matter should fall under the jurisdiction of the Waqf tribunal, as it involves Waqf property.

In response, the Hindu plaintiffs argued that no property under the name Shah Idgah is listed in government records and accused the mosque of illegal occupation.

They also asserted that if the property is claimed to be Waqf, the Waqf Board must disclose the donor of the disputed property.

The hearing of petitions will resume on August 12.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.