Jaunpur's Atala Mosque moves Allahabad High Court challenging suit by Hindu body to declare it a temple

The Atala mosque, located in Uttar Pradesh's Jaunpur, has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging a local court's May 2024 order that allowed the registration of a suit which claims that the mosque was originally an ancient temple referred to as 'Atala Devi mandir' [Waqf Atala Masjid v. Swaraj Vahini Association, and anr]..The suit in question was filed by the Swaraj Vahini Association (SVA) in a representative capacity and one Santosh Kumar Mishra before a local court in Jaunpur.The suit had sought a declaration that the disputed 14th-century property is the 'Atala Devi mandir' and that followers of the Sanatan religion have a right of worship there.These plaintiffs have urged the local court to order that they be given possession of the disputed property. They also seek a mandatory injunction to restrain non-Hindus from entering the property in question..The trial court had earlier given permission for the the suit to proceed in a representative capacity (under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code), which decision was upheld by a District Judge in August this year. Both of these orders have now been challenged by the mosque in the petition filed before the High Court..The mosque (petitioner) contends that the Hindu side's suit is fundamentally flawed, as the plaintiff, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is not a juristic person and therefore lacks the legal standing to file the suit in a representative capacity. The society's bylaws also do not permit it to engage in litigation of this nature, the mosque added. The petition before the High Court has contended further that:The allegations by plaintiffs that they represent the Hindus of Purvanchal is vague as it cannot be ascertained with certainty since the term 'Purvanchal' is not defined; The suit, having been instituted against the 'Peace Committee Jama Masjid (Atala Masjid)' which is non-entity, and the description of original defendant being absurd and vague on the face of it, the same raked of conspiracy by the plaintiffs; The plaintiffs have carried out mischief, which is further amplified by the fact that even the Waqf Board was not made party to the suit. The trial court facilitated this mischief by simply proceeding in a mechanical manner without looking to sensitive nature of the suit; The continuation of proceedings at the instance of a party which is ineligible to institute the suit is an abuse of the process of law..The petitioner has argued that the trial court should have dismissed the suit on these grounds.It also asserts that the property in focus has always been a mosque and has never been under the possession or ownership of followers of any other religion.It has emphasised that the property has been continuously used as a mosque since its construction in 1398, with the Muslim community regularly offering prayers, including Juma prayers..Shahi Jama Masjid-Kalki Temple dispute: UP court orders survey.In their suit before the Jaunpur Civil Court, the Hindu plaintiffs had claimed that the property in question used to house the Atala Devi Mandir, constructed by Raja Vijay Chandra in the 13th century, which was a Hindu temple where rituals such as puja, sewa, and kirtan were performed.They claim that in the latter half of the 13th century, following Feroz Tughlaq's invasion of India, the temple was partially demolished, and a mosque was built on its pillars. According to the plaintiffs, Tughlaq barred Hindus from entering the site, which they maintain was originally a Hindu temple constructed by Hindu artisans in a traditional architectural style.The plaintiffs allege that the Atala Masjid was never a mosque but was originally the Atala Devi Temple. They argue that the structure still reflects Hindu architectural features, despite attempts to portray it as a mosque.They further contend that Islamic teachings and the Quran do not permit offering Namaz in a mosque built on the ruins of a demolished temple, and therefore, constructing a mosque by destroying a temple violates both religious principles and the law.