Relief Sought Is Not To Convert Any Place Of Worship, But To Declare Religious Character Of Disputed Structure: Allahabad HC Rejects Plea Challenging Maintainability Of 'Gyanvapi' Suit

The main contention of the petitioners before the High Court was that the suit is prohibited by the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, which otherwise prohibits altering the character of a religions place as it existed on August 15, 1947.

"The relief sought by plaintiffs is not of converting any place of worship, but a declaration has been sought as to the religious character for part of Gyanvapi compound which comprise of a large area of 1 Bigha, 9 Biswa and 6 Dhoor forming settlement Plot No. 9130, 9131 and 9132, existing since Satyug till date.", the court observed.

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranajan Agarwal while holding that the place cannot have dual religious character at the same time, one of a temple or of a mosque, which are adverse to each other, dismissed the petitioners and vacated the interim orders. Further considering that the suit is of the year 1991, and that more than 32 years have elapsed, the bench directed the trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and conclude the proceedings of Original Suit within a period of 6 months, while further clarifying that the Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. “In case adjournment is granted, it will be at heavy cost”, the bench observed in the order. The bench further while identifying an identical noted that as the scientific survey is already being conducted by ASI in the original suit, directed the ASI to submit the report and if a further survey is required of an area which has been left out in the survey conducted by ASI, the trial court shall issue necessary directions to carry out further survey in view of order dated April 8, 2021.

The Court dealt with three issues in the matter.

Issue No. 1- Whether the original suit is barred by provisions of Act of 1991, and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?

While answering in negative, the bench relied on of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 the bench was of the opinion that the judgment dated September 23, 1998 passed by revisional court needed no interference by the Court. Further was of the opinion that unless and until the court adjudicates, the disputed place of worship cannot be called as a temple or mosque.

“The Act of 1991 is not an absolute bar upon the parties approaching the courts after its enforcement seeking their right as to place of worship or defining religious character of any place of worship. Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 enumerates certain cases in which the parties can approach the court for redressal of their grievance. Sub-Section (3)(d) is one of those case, where conversion has taken place much before the commencement of the Act and a party had not approached the court, the acquiescence or silence would not bar the action of such party”, the bench held.

“As ‘religious character’ has not been defined under the Act, and the place cannot have dual religious character at the same time, one of a temple or of a mosque, which are adverse to each other. Either the place is a temple or a mosque”, the bench further held.

Issue No. 2-Whether any interference is required by this Court against the direction issued for scientific survey under Order XXVI, Rule 10-A?

“From the reading of the directions issued on 08.04.2021 by Court below especially Clause-VI of the order, the scope of survey of Suit No.610 of 1991 is much wider and in respect of larger extent of land, than the survey which is conducted by ASI in suit filed by Rakhi Singh. However, as the order passed by Court below in case of Rakhi Singh for conducting scientific survey has already been upheld by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in special leave petition filed by defendant No.1, this Court finds that direction for compliance of order dated 08.04.2021 for conducting again the scientific survey in respect of plot No.9130 would be a futile exercise”, the bench observed.

Therefore, it was of the opinion that once ASI is already conducting the scientific survey as per the orders of the court, the plea raised by Sunni Waqf Board is untenable and is of no legal consequence and the same is turned down.

Issue no. 3-Whether the Court below has proceeded with the suit in defiance of the interim order granted by this Court in the year 1998.

While calling the efforts of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid “a feeble attempt” in stating that the trial Court was not correct in rejecting the application for staying the suit proceedings in the light of decision of Apex Court in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. the bench noted, “I find that no interim order was operating and the Court below had rightly proceeded with the suit complying the mandate of the Apex Court in case of Asian Resurfacing [61] of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the interim order passed in PIL No.564 of 2020 during COVID pandemic also came to an end on 05.01.2021. It was subsequently that the PIL was restored vide order dated 24.04.2021 and order dated 05.01.2021 was recalled and those interim orders which were in existence on 15.03.2021 stood extended till 31.05.2021”.

Cause Title: U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board v. Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others [Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:239874]

Click here to read/download the Judgment