The Civil Court in Mangaluru, Karnataka has said that it is within its jurisdiction to hear the petition related to Malalipete Masjid. The petitioners had urged the court to put a permanent stay on the demolition of the temple-like structure beneath the Malalipete mosque, located on the outskirts of Mangaluru.
But the Masjid Committee had termed it outside the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, Additional Civil Judge Nikita Akki
rejected the jurisdictional argument in her decision.
It was argued on behalf of the committee that because the
mosque is situated on the land of the Waqf Board, this matter is outside the
jurisdiction of the civil court and only the Waqf Tribunal can hear the matter.
The counsel for the petitioners, Chidanand Kedalya, has told that "the
court has said that this matter comes under its jurisdiction."
At the same time, MP Shenoy, counsel for the Masjid Committee,
has said, “We will take the issue of jurisdiction to the Karnataka High Court.
We have put forward all such matters of the Supreme Court under which this
matter should go before the Waqf Tribunal.
The issue of temple-like structures coming out under this
mosque is being compared to the Gyanvapi mosque controversy in Varanasi.
What
exactly is the matter?
This mosque built in the coastal area is a simple tiled traditional structure spread over an area of 4,350 square feet.
Local residents regularly attend prayers in this mosque.
There is a graveyard next to the mosque. It is said that this mosque came into
existence around 500 years ago during the rule of Ullal Abbakkadevi. A local
resident told BBC Hindi on condition of anonymity: "There are documents to
prove that this mosque existed because the road is described as Masjid
Road."
The controversy over the Asaid Abdullahi Madin Masjid at
Malalipete in Thenka Ulpadi village near Mangaluru came to the fore on April 21
this year.
The temple-like structure of this mosque got public
attention when a section of the wall was being demolished to bring construction
material inside for restoration.
As soon as these pictures and videos went viral on social
media, people started looking towards this mosque.
Compare
with Gyanvapi controversy
This was happening almost when the Gyanvapi mosque in
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh was in the center of discussion. Prohibitory orders
were imposed by the local police to avoid any uneasy situation in this
communally sensitive area for decades. Regarding Dhananjay and Manoj Kumar, the
two litigants in the case, his lawyer M. Chidanand Kedalya said, "They
were surprised to see an old temple inside the mosque. Both of them appealed to
the members of the mosque committee not to demolish the temple-like structure. When
the Masjid Committee did not pay heed to their words, both the plaintiffs
informed the police, Tehsildar and District Deputy Commissioner. After this,
top officials of the local administration reached the spot and the construction
work was stopped.
According to the lawyer for the plaintiffs, "the police
administration told the plaintiffs that the mosque committee has permission to
conduct the construction work, so the construction work cannot be stopped for a
long time without the order of the court."
The very next day, Dhananjay and Manoj Kumar appealed to the
civil court to stop the construction work and the demolition of the old
structure. After this, on 21 April, the civil court temporarily banned the construction
work in the mosque. However, later the court did not accept the commissioner's
demand for a local survey. The High Court has upheld the decision of the Civil
Court in this matter.
What are
both sides saying?
In this case, the plaintiffs Dhanjay and Manoj Kumar and the respondent Malalipete Masjid Committee chairman Mamu Manel have given these arguments.
"They are local residents and they are interested in
this temple which is an ancient heritage. Their ancestors used to worship in
this temple," said Dhanjay and Manoj Kumar, around 30-year-old youth.
According to both of them, this mosque has been constructed
on government land and both are demanding to declare the old temple as a
historical monument and hand it over to the Archaeological Department for
preservation.
Advocate M Shenoy is representing his side on behalf of Mamu
Manel, chairman of Malalipete Masjid Committee, in the court.
Mamu Manel says that 'Both the plaintiffs live at a distance
of 10 kilometers from the mosque. Both are members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
Well-known lawyers and MLAs also live near the mosque, but both of them have
not filed any case.
The cases are not legally enforceable as the property in
question is the property of the Waqf Board. The matter should be taken up with
the Waqf Tribunal and the Waqf Board should also be made a party.
Along with this, he has said that 'the mosque has been in
existence since 1550 AD. Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act, 1991 apply here.
The temple never existed on the property in question. No
evidence of ancient times has been presented to prove the existence of the
temple.
Along with this, the defendants have said in the court that
the litigants have filed the petition only because elections are to be held in
the state next year.
Gyanvapi case: Court rejects demand for carbon dating of
alleged Shivling
What is the dispute about Gyanvapi Masjid and Kashi
Vishwanath Temple?