Budaun: Jama Masjid

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Additional information may please be sent as messages to the Facebook community, Indpaedia.com. All information used will be gratefully acknowledged in your name.

The dispute

As in 2023

Kanwardeep Singh, June 1, 2023: The Times of India

Muslims consider the 800-yr-old Jama masjid to be the birthplace of empress Razia Sultana
From: Kanwardeep Singh, June 1, 2023: The Times of India

Bareilly: Responding to a petition filed by the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM) on August 8 last year in a civil court of Budaun, in which they claimed that the 800-year-old Jama masjid in the district “was built after demolishing an ancient Shiva temple” and that the court should conduct a survey to confirm this, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted that the mosque is protected under Places of Worship (special provisions) Act 1991, which mandates places of worship will stay as they stood on August 15, 1947. 
The district government counsel (civil) Sanjeev Kumar Vaish, on behalf of the ASI and Centre, filed a reply in court. Kumar told TOI, “We have raised four objections and the court will decide whether the case is maintainable. First, the fact that the ASI Lucknow division was made a party in this case, while this mosque falls under the Meerut division of ASI. The second is that the mosque is protected under Places of Worship (special provisions) Act 1991. The third objection is that under sub section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the government by notification in an official gazette had declared the mosque as a protected monument. The fourth objection was made under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958, which says the ‘form’ of protected monuments cannot be changed. ”

After hearing ABHM’s petition, the court on September 2, 2021 ordered the registration of a civil case and had sought replies from the Intzamiya committee of Jama Masjid, UP Sunni Waqf Board, UP archaeology department, Union of India and UP government.

Advocate Vivek Kumar, representing ABHM, told TOI,“ASI submitted that the property belongs to them and that the petition deserves to be dismissed in the early stage, as per the provisions of section 7 and 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC). We say those sections are not applicable if the property has been acquired by ASI, as we only want permission to offer prayers inside the premises as per Hindu traditions. We will file our reply before next date of hearing. ”

Advocate Asrar Ahmad, who represented the Jama Masjid committee, said, “We are assessing the ASI’s reply and will take steps soon. ”

The next date of hearing is July 30. The site is significant for Muslims as it is considered to be the birthplace of empress Razia Sultana and to Hindus as they believe the mosque was built after razing an ancient temple of Neelkanth.