5th ODI: India restrict Australia to 272/9 despite Khawaja's ton
New Delhi, Mar 13: India staged a decent comeback to restrict Australia to 272 for nine after Usman Khawaja continued with his imperious form by hitting his second hundred of the series in the decisive fifth ODI here Wednesday.
Khawaja, who had not scored a century before arriving to India for this series, hit an exact 100 off 106 balls and shared two big partnerships at the top of the order.
Australia were placed comfortably at 175 for one in the 33rd over and set for a kill in slog overs, but the script changed for the hosts when Bhuvneshwar Kumar got rid off Khawaja in the last ball of the that over.
The visitors added only 97 runs after that in 17 overs, surrendering the advantage, which was well-earned by Khawaja and his top-order colleagues.
The left-hander, who hit a century in Ranchi as well, first raised a 76-run stand with Aaron Finch (27) after his skipper elected to bat in hazy and overcast conditions and followed it up with a 99-run partnership with Peter Handscomb (52).
Bhuvneshwar took three wickets for 48 runs while Ravindra Jadeja (2/45) and Mohammed Shami (2/57) accounted for two batsmen each.
The Feroz Shah Kotla wicket did not have much for either spinners or pacers but was far from usual low and slow track as the Australians easily worked the ball around.
Khawaja was yet again impressive with his footwork, handling the Indian spinners nicely before being caught at shot extra cover by Kohli off Bhuvneshwar Kumar.
The left-hander hit 10 fours and two sixes before driving straight to Kohli.
Jadeja then got rid of Glenn Maxwell (1) and Shami sent back Handscomb as Australia lost three wickets in the space of 14 balls.
The tide turned in India's favour with Australia managing just 27 runs in overs between 34 and 40.
Jadeja, who replaced Yuzvendra Chahal, made a strong case for himself for inclusion in the World Cup squad with figures of 10-0-45-2.
Jasprit Bumrah was exceptional in his first eight overs giving just 14 runs but Jhye Richardson (29) spoilt his figures by creaming off four boundaries from his ninth over, providing one last push to Australian innings.
It turned out to be a forgettable day for chinaman Kuldeep Yadav who bled 74 runs in his 10 overs but dismissed dangerous Ashton Turner (20) cheaply.
Earlier, it was only Mohammed Shami who initially tested Finch with away-going and in-coming balls but once the Australia captain got his eye in, he went about his business without fuss.
Khawaja continued with his rich form, striking boundaries easily. His straight boundary, punched on the up, off Bhuvneshwar was a treat to watch.
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.
