Bengaluru FC beat FC Goa, crowned ISL champions for first time
Mumbai, Mar 17: Bengaluru FC clinched their maiden Indian Super League title as Rahul Bheke found a championship-winning header in the dying minutes of the final against FC Goa, here Sunday.
The two teams were locked 0-0 after 90 minutes. Even the first extra time saw no goals but Bengaluru got better of a 10-men Goan team 1-0, four minutes from the end of the second extra half.
Goa's mid-fielder Ahmed Jahouh was shown a second yellow card and he had to walk out as the side was reduced to 10 men.
It looked Goa defenders would take the game into the penalties but Bheke looped a header on a corner kick from Dimas Delgado and it went past custodian Naveen Kumar, triggering celebrations in the Bengaluru camp.
Earlier, both the teams began with caution. Goa earned a corner early in the game but Edu Bedia'e header went wide at a nearly packed Mumbai Football Arena.
Bengaluru had a chance when mid-fielder Nishu Kumar sent Sunil Chhetri through with a lobbed pass. The skipper passed it to Miku, who cut past three players and shot, but Goa custodian Naveen collected it safely.
In the 24th minute, Bengaluru had another chance. Xisco played Chhetri down the flank and the captain sent a cross in the box to Miku but his header sailed above the bar.
Two minutes later, Miku had another close chance, but Goa's defense did well to clear it.
Bengaluru strikers kept Goa's defense and Naveen Kumar on their toes, but still both the sides were searching for their first goal after 35 minutes.
Goa received a setback when their skipper and mid-fielder Mandar Rao Dessai had to be stretchered out as he pulled his hamstring just before the conclusion of the first half.
Goa did have a few chances in the first half, but they failed to convert any.
After the change of ends, Goa upped the ante and their best chance came in the 58th minute when Brandon Fernandes swung a cross for Bedia, but the Spanish mid-fielder couldn't get a touch on to it.
In the 67th minute, aggressive mid-fielder Jackichand Singh played the ball to Ahmed Jahouh outside the box, and the Moroccon tried to slot one in the top corner but ended upside footing to the keeper Gurpreet Singh Sandhu.
In the additional time of the second half, Bengaluru had another close chance. Nishu Kumar crossed the ball into the box and Miku zoomed past the defenders. He took a touch and shot but Mourtada Fall got into the way as Bengaluru earned a corner. After 90 minutes, the two sides were still locked 0-0.
In the first extra' time, Bengaluru survived a near scare when Luisma headed the ball back to Gurpreet but the experienced keeper collected safely.
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.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
