Allahabad HC on Gyanvapi dispute and Puja in Vyasji Ka Tehkhana

Today, Hon’ble J. Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court abstained from restraining the Puja in the Gyanvapi. The Gyanvapi Mosque Committee filed this plea to seek an interim stay on the performance of puja inside the Vyas Tehkhana. However, for maintaining the law and order the court has instructed the State Government.

Facts of the Gyanvapi Case in Brief-

On 31^st of January this year the Varanasi District Judge Shree Ajay Krishna Vishvesha directed the District Administration to make appropriate arrangements within seven days from the date of order for Hindus so that they can perform Puja inside the Vyas Tehkhana of Gyanvapi. The Puja at this place was stopped in December 1993 by the then Mulam Singh Yadav’s Government. Although, until 1993 the Vyas family was performing Puja in the ‘Somnath Vyas Tehkhana’. The District Magistrate complied with the order of the District Judge on the same day.

Presently, the Gyanvapi is being managed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee. On the 1^st of February, an appeal was preferred by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee against the order of the District Judge allowing Hindus to perform Puja in ‘Vyas Ji ka Tehkhana’, seeking stay on performance of Puja and other rituals by Hindus. However, the Bench of Hon’ble J. Rohit Ranjan Agarwal abstained from allowing interim relief to the appellant (Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee). The backdrop of the Appellant side was that it did not challenge the Varanasi District Judges order dated 17th January 2024 in which the District Magistrate was appointed as a receiver. The receiver was appointed by the District Court in the case filed by the Head Priest of the Acharya Ved Vyas Peeth Temple.

Operative Part of the Varanasi District Judge’s order-

“District Magistrate, Varanasi/ receiver is directed to get puja, ragablog performance of idols located in the southern celler of #GyanvyapiMosque (Suit Property), through a priest nominated by Kashi Vishwanath Trust Board & plaintiff. For this purpose, make proper arrangements of iron fencing etc. in 7 days”

The District Magistrate of Varanasi/Receiver Shree M.S. Rajalingam on the same day i.e. the day on which the order was passed swiftly entered the premise of Gyanvapi and thereafter the tehkhana (basement) was unlocked and Dainik Puja was performed inside the Vyas Tehkhana.

Also Read- 1. Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply with full force and is for making a prayer for condonation of delay before the DRT- M.P. High Court

2. Cyber Kidnapping- Protect Yourself From Being a Victim

The High Court said,” Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant appellants submits that he will be filing the amendment application amending the appeal and laying challenge to the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the District Judge, Varanasi on the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC”

Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure–

Order 40 (Order XL)- Appointment of Receivers

Rule 1- Appointment of Receivers

1. Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order—
   • appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree;
   • remove any person from the possession or custody of the property;
   • commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and
   • confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realisation, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit.
2. Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove.

While the Puja began on the 31st of January night, the family members of Pandit Somnath Vyas, whose ancestors devoted themselves to the temple as priests were present.