In a big setback for the Muslim side, Allahabad High Court said that the civil suit filed by the Hindu side is maintainable in the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute case of Mathura.

The verdict was given by a single judge bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on the maintainability of 18 civil suits pending in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case on Thursday.

The Eidgah Committee announced they would challenge the high court’s decision in the Supreme Court.

The court held a long hearing for days at end on the petition filed by the Muslim side regarding the maintainability of all the civil suits. After this, the decision was reserved in June last. The Civil suits from the Hindu side demanded removal of the structure of the Shahi Idgah Mosque, handing over the possession of the land and the reconstruction of the temple.

It is claimed through the petitions that the Shahi Idgah mosque, dating back to the time of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, was constructed after allegedly demolishing the temple built at the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Therefore Hindus have the right to worship at that disputed site.

At the same time, raising questions on the legal status of the plaintiffs, the Muslim side claimed that there was no dispute between Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and the Shahi Idgah Committee. They claimed that the parties raising the dispute have no relation, association, or concern with the Janmabhoomi Trust and Idgah Committee.

Apart from this, it has also been argued that the Idgah site is Waqf property. The mosque was established on August 15, 1947. Now, the form of a religious place cannot be changed under the Right to Worship Act.

Hindu parties’ arguments were that the entire two-and-a-half-acre area of Idgah is the sanctum sanctorum of Lord Krishna and the Shahi Idgah Mosque Committee does not have any such record of the land. They claim that Shahi Idgah Mosque has been constructed by demolishing Shri Krishna Temple. Besides, without ownership rights, the Waqf Board has declared this land Waqf property without any valid process.

However, the Muslim side argues that there was an agreement reached between the two parties on this land in 1968. It is not right to call the agreement wrong after 60 years. Therefore, the case is not maintainable.

They also claim that the case is not maintainable even under the Places of Worship Act 1991.The identity and nature of the religious place will remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947.