Mathura court moved for removal of mosque from within Lord Krishna temple premises
Mathura: A group of devout Hindus has moved a Mathura civil court here for removal of a mosque allegedly built on orders of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1669-70 at the exact birthplace of Lord Sri Krishna within the 13.37-acre premises of Katra Keshav Dev temple in the holy city.
The petition filed in the court of Mathura Senior Civil Judge Chhaya Sharma on Friday has also demanded the annulment of a 1968 Mathura court ruling, ratifying a land deal reached between the Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Shahi Idgah Management Committee, perpetuating the existence of the mosque within the temple premises.
The petition was filed by Lucknow resident Ranjana Agnihotri and five others, including Delhi resident Parvesh Kumar, Rajesh Mani Tripathi of Siddharth Nagar in Uttar Pradesh, Karunesh Kumar Shukla of Basti, and Shivaji Singh and Tripurari Tiwari, both of Lucknow.
Agnihotri, 51, has also moved the court as the next friend of both the deities, Sri Krishna Virajman and the Asthan Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi, Katra Keshav Dev, claiming both to be juristic persons, liable to be represented in courts by their next friends , if the temple 'shebaits' fail to move court to protect deities rights and interests.
The petitioners have arrayed four organizations as the respondents in their plea. They include the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Committee of Management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah, the 17th-century mosque existing within the temple premises.
The two other bodies which have been arrayed as respondents are Shree Krishna Janambhoomi Trust, Mathura and Shree Krishna Janm Sthan Sewa Sansthan through their respective secretaries.
The petitioners made the two temple bodies as respondents arguing that they have failed to protect the interests of the deities.
On the timing of the moving court, the petitioners have asserted that the cause of action against the continuing wrong has been accruing every day and it last accrued on January 15, 2020, when the plaintiffs had visited Mathura to pay their obeisance to Lord Krisna and were shocked to see a mosque existing right within the temple.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC to decide if gram panchayat members can continue in Manipur post tenure: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.
