Prayagraj. The mosque side has suffered a setback in the case of simultaneous hearing of all 15 civil cases related to the ownership of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi located in Mathura in the Allahabad High Court. On Wednesday, a single bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain rejected the recall application of the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board in which it was demanded to withdraw the order of January 11, 2024 for simultaneous hearing.
This has now cleared the way for hearing all the cases together. After hearing both the parties, the court had reserved the order on October 16. The next date for hearing other pending applications including deciding the civil suit points has been fixed as November 6.
In its 24-page judgment, the court said that under Order 4-A of the Civil Procedure Code (rule for adding new suits to old suits), the court has the power to consolidate and hear suits of similar nature together. Using this power, the court has ordered the hearing of 15 suits together.
There is no provision to take consent or permission of any party to give such an order. The court said, the purpose of the opposition’s objection to the order of hearing all the cases together is not clear. Opposition lawyer Nasiruzzama had said that there is no objection to hearing the cases by consolidating them.
UP Sunni Central Waqf Board’s advocate Puneet Gupta had also agreed to consolidate the cases. Three other cases were also pending. They have not been consolidated. Only 15 cases have been consolidated with the original case of Lord Shri Krishna Virajman Katra Keshav Dev and hearing has been ordered.
Consolidating the cases according to facts, cause of action and relief will save time of the court and the parties. Keeping in view the principle of convenience in settlement of cases, the order has been passed in the interest of the parties and in the interest of justice. Advocates Mahendra Pratap Singh, Saurabh Tiwari etc. of the temple side have considered it a big victory and have expressed hope that this will lead to speedy justice.
This is the background to the case
Shahi Idgah Mosque was built during the reign of Aurangzeb. The temple side is of the opinion that it was built by demolishing the temple built at the birthplace of Lord Krishna. In the year 1968, an agreement was reached between Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, Temple Management Authority and Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah. In this, permission was given to operate both the places of worship together.
The plaintiffs argue that the agreement is fraudulent and legally void. In May 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all the cases pending in the Mathura court, seeking various reliefs related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute.
The mosque side challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, but did not get relief. So far 39 dates have been fixed in the Allahabad High Court in the case. The first hearing in the court of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain was held on October 18, 2023.
Training of women heads is necessary to discourage ‘Pradhanpati culture’: High Court
Allahabad High Court has directed to provide division-wise training within three months regarding the rights and duties of village heads, especially women heads. It has been said that ‘Pradhanpati culture’ should be discouraged. When the public utility land of the village assembly is taken for other public utility work, the consent of the villagers should be taken so that people do not come to the High Court against the use of any public land for other public interest.
With this comment, a single bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamsheri in its order has disposed of the PILs filed by Ambika Yadav of Ghazipur and many others. The court has refused to interfere in the construction of water tank and RCC centre on the pasture land, new fallow land, ditch and barn of the village assembly, considering it to be in public interest, however, it has said that if the construction has not been started then it should be shifted to the side.
The government said that the nature (type) of the land will not change by constructing a water tank on a small part of the pasture land. No one will get Bhumidhari rights on public utility land. The court has also directed that if encroachment has been done by the village head or family or others, then action should be taken within a month.
The petitioners said that without following the legal process, on the proposal of the village assembly, boring, water tank and RCC center are being constructed on the land reserved for public use for pasture and barn. This should be stopped. The government said that out of the total 4,550 square meters of land, only 42 square meters of land will be used in the interest of the villagers.
The court said, it has been informed that this land is also being used for wedding ceremonies and as a playground. No one can be given Bhumidhari rights on the public land of the village assembly. On this, the government said that Bhumidhari rights have not been given on the land. The court has also directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary for compliance.
High court ordered refund of road tax on electric cars
Allahabad High Court has ordered refund of road tax on hybrid electric car. This order has been given by the division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit on the petition of The Sunbeam Academy Educational Society Varanasi. The petitioner bought a Toyota Innova Highcross car.
Road tax was collected from him. The petitioner challenged it in the High Court. Petitioner’s lawyer Devesh Tripathi said that as per the notification issued by the Transport Department of Uttar Pradesh on March 2, 2023, road tax on hybrid electric cars has been waived.
The Additional Chief Standing Council also accepted that road tax is not being levied on hybrid electric vehicles since the state government’s order of June 28, 2024. After hearing the parties, the court disposed of the petition by ordering the petitioner to refund the road tax within six weeks.
Challenge to AMU VC selection process, notice to opponents on petition
The Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to the opponents on the petition challenging the legality of the selection process after shortlisting the name of the wife of the acting Vice Chancellor in the selection of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and has sought a reply within four weeks.
The court has also directed to present the petition of Professor Dr. Muzaffar U Rabbani for hearing along with the pending petitions of Dr. Mujahid Beg and Syed Afzal Murtaza Rizvi. This order was given by Justice Prakash Padia while hearing the petition of Muzaffar U Rabbani and others.
The petition of Professor Syed Afzal Murtaza Rizvi of the Department of Computer Science at Jamia Millia Islamia was earlier rejected by Justice Vikas Budhwar, giving him the liberty to file a fresh petition with better facts. After that, his petition is pending.
The petitioner says that among the three candidates shortlisted for the post of Vice Chancellor in the meeting of AMU Executive Council, there is also Naima Khatoon, Principal of AMU Women’s College, wife of Acting Vice Chancellor Mohammad Gulrez. She got 50 votes of the members of AMU Court. The other two shortlisted candidates M U Rabbani (former Dean of AMU Medicine Faculty) and Faizan Mustafa (famous jurist and former VC of National Law University Nalsar) got 61 and 53 votes respectively.
In a meeting of the university executive council chaired by Mohd. Gulrez, the names of five candidates were finalised to be sent to the AMU court but the governing body dropped the names of Furqan Qamar (former VC of Rajasthan University and first VC of Himachal Pradesh Central University) and Qayyum Hussain.
The shortlisting of Naima Khatoon’s name by the panel headed by the acting VC has raised the question of conflict of interest. Eight members of the AMU governing body who attended the meeting to shortlist the names have also submitted a dissent note questioning the process.
According to senior advocate Neeraj Tripathi, there is nothing in the Act and law of this institute which prevents the Vice Chancellor from presiding or voting in a meeting in which his wife is among the candidates for selection.
