Sunni Waqf Board’s petition regarding Atala Masjid rejected. Sunni Waqf Board’s petition regarding Atala Masjid rejected: Next hearing in Jaunpur Civil Court on November 16, statement will be made – Jaunpur News

,

In this case, the petition of Waqf Board and Peace Committee versus Swaraj Vahini is pending in the court. Swaraj Vahini has claimed that there used to be a temple in place of Atala Masjid, which was later converted into a mosque. At the same time, the Waqf Board argued that this mosque is their property and the hearing on it cannot be held in the civil court.

Swaraj Vahini’s advocate Suresh Chandra Pathak strongly argued in the court that there is historical evidence of Atala Masjid being a temple in the past. He said that followers of Hindu religion have been worshiping at this place for years. Pathak also argued that the Waqf Board’s claim is unacceptable on the basis of the law governing the maintenance of the status of religious places before 1947.

It was argued on behalf of the Waqf Board that under the 1991 law, the status of religious places was kept as it was after the Ayodhya dispute. He had given an application on this basis, which was rejected by the court. On behalf of Swaraj Vahini, it was said that this property did not belong to the Waqf Board and was captured by the invaders.

Advocate Suresh Chandra Pathak said that no matter who the invader is, he cannot get ownership rights on the property. This place has been a center of faith in Hinduism, and the tradition of worship has always been going on here. He also said that records of properties were kept during the time of Shahjahan, but at that time Hindus were not given rights over their religious places.

After this decision of the court, Swaraj Vahini has heaved a sigh of relief. However, the Waqf Board and other opposition parties still have the right to appeal to a higher court. Even before this, this matter had reached the High Court, where the Waqf Board’s petition was rejected. Now it remains to be seen what decision the court takes on this historical dispute in the hearing to be held on November 16.