In an affidavit responding to the petition by Management Committee, Anjuman Intejamiya MosqueSeeking to quash the survey of Gyanvapi Masjid, Varanasi, the plaintiff, through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, said that the British government rightly took a stand that the land belonged to the temple, as it was never a waqf property, Muslims Can’t claim it to be a mosque.
The plaintiff said, “Historians have confirmed that the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb had issued a ‘farman’ for the demolition of the temple of Adi Vishweshwar (Kashi Vishwanath) at Varanasi on April 9, 1669. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this establish that the erstwhile ruler or any subsequent ruler has passed an order to build a waqf on the disputed land or to hand over the land to any Muslim or Muslim body.”
“A mosque can be constructed only on the property dedicated by the Waqf, who should be the rightful owner of the property. The construction done by any Muslim ruler or on the land of a temple by a Muslim cannot be treated as a mosque. ” They said.
The Mosque Management Committee, through senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, claimed that Muslims have been performing wudoo and offering prayers in the mosque since ancient times or at least 500 years, while demanding that Muslims have access to the sealed wudu food. Where a Shivling was discovered recently. Court order survey
The plaintiff said, “Any super structure erected by Muslims on temple land, can only be a structure and cannot be treated as a mosque… Devata Adi Visheshwar as the legal owner of the entire land of settlement plot no. Continuing. 9130, 9131 and 9132 in Mauja Shahar Khas, Tehsil and District Varanasi. The land does not belong to any Muslim, Muslim body or Waqf Board.’
“Without implicating a Hindu party, a Din Mohammad filed Civil Suit 62 of 1936, seeking a declaration to the Secretary of State for India through the District Magistrate, Benares, and through the Anjuman Intejamiya Masjid, Benares Plot No. 9130, 1 Bigha 9 Biswa and 6 Dhur together with the surroundings mentioned in the plaintiff, was in the possession of the Waqf that the plaintiff and other Muslims offered their prayers especially goodbye and had the right to exercise other religious rights,” he said.
In the suit, a written statement was filed on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in the Council, refuting the allegations of the plaintiffs. Attaching a copy of the statement to his affidavit on behalf of the Secretary of State, the plaintiff quoted it as – “The statues and temples that stand there have been in existence long before the advent of Mohammedan rule in India.”
In paragraph 11, the British Government said – “It is submitted that the non-Muslims have been using the land for their religious purposes as a matter of right and they have got the right over it.” In para 12 he said – “The land concerned was never stamped with the character of ‘Waqf’ land. It was never dedicated to God, nor could it be dedicated and God had no proprietary interest.” is.”
It further stated that – “The Muslim of that time or Aurangzeb himself for that time was not the owner of the site which contained the old temple of Vishwanath and which was demolished by Aurangzeb due to religious opposition, so he could . has not been dedicated in accordance with the true spirit of the Muslim religion.”
The plaintiff said, “The deities shall not lose their rights merely because the temple suffered considerable damage during foreign rule because the deity’s right over the property is never lost and the worshipers’ right to worship the deity and asthan Hindu is protected under the law. He cited the SC’s 1997 judgment as well as quotes from the Skanda and Shiva Puranas on the Kashi Vishwanath temple to support his claim.