Lucknow: The Varanasi district court will now hear nine suits related to the Gyanvapi dispute, with the transfer of a petition seeking that the local district magistrate be handed over the supervision of the tahkhana (basement) in the Gyanvapi premises.
On Thursday, the district court sought the records of the case filed by petitioner Shailendra Kumar Pathak ‘Vyas’ in the court of civil judge, senior division, in September and clubbed this suit with eight other related cases which it is hearing.
In May, ThePrint reported that district judge Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha directed that seven suits related to Adi Visheshwar temple pending in two local courts be consolidated and made the Shringar Gauri case — the eighth case already pending before it — as the leading case for them.
The latest civil suit (844/2023) filed by Vyas in the court of civil judge (senior division) on 25 September sought permission that he be allowed to restart prayers in tahkhana area which were stopped in 1993 and that the supervision of the area be handed over to the district magistrate.
Sudhir Tripathi, a lawyer for the petitioner, told ThePrint that the Vyas family submitted that it was engaged in conducting pooja in tahkhana area till 1993, but it was stopped after the spot was barricaded on the Uttar Pradesh government’s order.
“The petitioner demanded that pooja be restarted. The suit filed in the court of civil judge said that the tahkhana’s door has been broken and the Anjuman Intazamia Masajid committee was trying to take possession of the area and, therefore, be restrained. It demanded that the area be handed over to the DM for supervision,” Tripathi said.
In its Thursday order, the district judge said that in the interest of justice, this case too should be transferred to his court.
“It is mentionable that the main case no. 18/2022 is being heard in the district court under which the relief to offer prayer to the deities of Shringar Gauri, Ganesh and others present in the Gyanvapi masjid premises located on plot number 9130 in Chowk police station, Varanasi, has been sought. The case no. 844/2023 pending in the court of civil judge, too, seeks right to offer prayers in connection with the tahkhana situated in the so-called Gyanvapi premises. Hence, in the interest of justice, it will be correct that this case, too, be transferred to the district court,” the judge said in his order.
Stating that no case was filed in connection with rights over tahkhana, the court said that in the present case, the petitioner has sought relief that he be given the right to offer prayers as a pujari again and that Shiva devotees be given this benefit as well.
“The petitioner has said that he has the right to offer prayers as a pujari separately. This is his hereditary office and it is the Kashi Vishwanath trust’s duty that it supports him in his work as the hereditary pujari as per the established rules. This case can be heard in the district court,” it said.
“Keeping in view its nature and purview and the points raised in the main case, it is important to conduct the hearing in the Varanasi district court. Hence, in order to maintain a routine in the orders passed in the related cases, it is necessary that the case be transferred from the court of civil judge senior division to the district court.”
Also Read: Aibak, Akbar, Aurangzeb—the Gyanvapi divide & why a controversial mosque has a Sanskrit name
Masjid committee’s objection dismissed
The Anjuman Intazamia Masajid committee had filed an objection against the transfer application (filed by Vyas) alleging that the “case has been filed on the basis of wrong facts”, but it was turned down.
The court said the mosque committee “did not present any objection or response to the case filed in the court of civil judge”.
Noting that both the cases (nos. 18/2022 and 844/2023) were “seeking separate reliefs,” the court said that “there is no question of issuing contradictory orders.”
Meanwhile, the Kashi Vishwanath board of trustees, too, filed an objection against the transfer application (filed by Vyas) but the court found it “baseless.”
The board had objected saying that the “case number and the year of the main case in connection with which the transfer application has been filed, had not been mentioned” and hence it was “incomplete and erroneous”.
The district court, however, said that the objection was “baseless” because it “had been mentioned in point number 6 of page number 2 of the application”.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Lakshmi, Sita, Rekha, Manju, Rakhi — meet the 5 women at the centre of Gyanvapi petition