Lucknow, Sep 28 (IANS) Two days after a civil suit was filed in a Mathura court, seeking ownership of the entire 13.37 acres of Krishna Janambhoomi land in the temple town and removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid, politics has begun in right earnest on the issue.
Former BJP MP and founder of Bajrang Dal, Vinay Katiyar, welcomed the civil suit and said that a massive movement like the one for Ayodhya should be built to ‘liberate’ the Krishna Janambhoomi.
“It has been our resolve to free the three shrines at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. Now that the way for Ram temple has been cleared, we will work towards liberating the Krishna Janambhoomi. It would be better if Muslims voluntarily give up their claim on the land which is the birthplace of Lord Krishna,” he said.
BJP MP Harnath Singh Yadav echoed similar sentiments and said that Muslim should give up their claim on the Krishna Janambhoomi because Islam does not permit worship on any land that has been forcibly occupied.
Iqbal Ansari, the plaintiff in the Babri title suit case, meanwhile, said, that there should be an end to this kind of politics and Hindus and Muslims should now be allowed to live together in peace and harmony.
“There are some with vested interest who want to keep fueling the Hindu-Muslim feud but this is not in the interest of the nation. The Ayodhya dispute is over and Muslims have gracefully accepted the court verdict. There is no need to rake up other issues,” he said.
Senior counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board in the Ayodhya dispute, Zafaryab Jilani said that such issues were being deliberately raked up for political gains.
“A compromise had already been made on the issue in 1951 but a fresh suit has been filed in court to revive the dispute. If this is not politics, then what is?” he asked.
It may be recalled that the suit was filed by the ‘Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mauja Mathura Bazaar City’ through the ‘next friend’ Ranjana Agnihotri and six other devotees.
Agnihotri, a Lucknow-based lawyer, had represented the Hindu Mahasabha in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit in various courts, including the Supreme Court.
Despite the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, being in place, the civil suit was filed in the Mathura court.
The Act bars courts from entertaining litigation that would alter the status quo of a religious place as it existed in 1947. However, the Act had exempted the litigation over the ownership of the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land.
It may be noted that when the Supreme Court, in November 2019, had pronounced its verdict for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya, one of the parties was Sri Ram Lalla Virajman, who had filed a civil suit in Ayodhya in 1989 through his ‘next friend’ Triloki Nath Pandey.
The fresh suit filed by Sri Krishna Virajman through Agnihotri said, “UP Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah or any member of Muslim community have no interest or right in the property of Katra Keshav Dev over an area measuring 13.37 acres and entire land vests in the deity Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman.”
“This suit is being filed for removal of encroachment and superstructure illegally raised by committee of management of alleged Trust Masjid Idgah with the consent of Sunni Central Board of Waqf on land Khewat No.255 at Katra Keshav Dev, city Mathura belonging to deity Srikrishna Virajman,” said Agnihotri.
The site in Mathura is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Along with Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya and Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, it’s one of the three sites which Hindu outfits, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) want to be restored to Hindus.
The main litigant, advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, told reporters that her petition had already been admitted by the Mathura court.
Over the provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which may be a stumbling block in the adjudication of the suit, Agnihotri said she was confident that the said Act would not be a problem in the adjudication of the suit filed by her.
“I have drafted the suit after studying the provisions of the 1991 Act and it will not hamper my case. As it is, my petition has already been admitted by the court,” she added.