<p>The Chamarajpet Idgah row has intensifed with the Central Muslim Association (CMA), the holder of the two-acre, five-gunta land, asking the BBMP to rescind its public statement that the property belongs to it. </p>.<p>In a letter to the BBMP special commissioner, CMA general secretary Dr Zahiruddin Ahmed reiterated that the land was a registered wakf property. And a wakf gazette notification to this effect was issued on June 7, 1965, just a year after a two-judge bench of the Surpeme Court dismissed the then City Corporation of Bangalore’s claims over the property, Ahmed said. He noted that the CMA was “in possession and enjoyment” of the Idgah Maidan. </p>.<p>The corporation had constructed an “unauthorised” ward office in the southwestern corner of the Idgah Maidan but later agreed to take that portion on lease for 30 years following a meeting between the then mayor M B Lingaiah and CMA representatives on August 28, 1971, Ahmed said.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/no-end-in-sight-to-chamarajpet-idgah-dispute-1116566.html" target="_blank">No end in sight to Chamarajpet Idgah dispute</a> </strong></p>.<p>The CMA wrote to the corporation on March 3, 1994, seeking the possession of the ward office but the civic body did not respond, he said and expressed surprise at the BBMP’s claim that the Idgah Maidan is a playground and belongs to it. He also asked the BBMP to issue a newspaper statement withdrawing the earlier claim. </p>.<p>Separately, Captain Manivannan P, secretary, Minorities Welfare, Haj and Waqf Department, said the matter was “black and white”, referring to the court judgement. </p>.<p>While he refused to comment as to why the BBMP was making the claim, he said the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf and the civic body would be exchanging original documents pertaining to the Idgah Maidan.</p>.<p>“We will then see if there is any misunderstanding, lack of understanding or different interpretation. We’ll decide on Monday or Tuesday,” Manivannan told <span class="italic">DH</span>. “We will not have any difference of opinion on facts and data.” </p>.<p>The official maintained that the court order was “unambiguous”. </p>
<p>The Chamarajpet Idgah row has intensifed with the Central Muslim Association (CMA), the holder of the two-acre, five-gunta land, asking the BBMP to rescind its public statement that the property belongs to it. </p>.<p>In a letter to the BBMP special commissioner, CMA general secretary Dr Zahiruddin Ahmed reiterated that the land was a registered wakf property. And a wakf gazette notification to this effect was issued on June 7, 1965, just a year after a two-judge bench of the Surpeme Court dismissed the then City Corporation of Bangalore’s claims over the property, Ahmed said. He noted that the CMA was “in possession and enjoyment” of the Idgah Maidan. </p>.<p>The corporation had constructed an “unauthorised” ward office in the southwestern corner of the Idgah Maidan but later agreed to take that portion on lease for 30 years following a meeting between the then mayor M B Lingaiah and CMA representatives on August 28, 1971, Ahmed said.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/no-end-in-sight-to-chamarajpet-idgah-dispute-1116566.html" target="_blank">No end in sight to Chamarajpet Idgah dispute</a> </strong></p>.<p>The CMA wrote to the corporation on March 3, 1994, seeking the possession of the ward office but the civic body did not respond, he said and expressed surprise at the BBMP’s claim that the Idgah Maidan is a playground and belongs to it. He also asked the BBMP to issue a newspaper statement withdrawing the earlier claim. </p>.<p>Separately, Captain Manivannan P, secretary, Minorities Welfare, Haj and Waqf Department, said the matter was “black and white”, referring to the court judgement. </p>.<p>While he refused to comment as to why the BBMP was making the claim, he said the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf and the civic body would be exchanging original documents pertaining to the Idgah Maidan.</p>.<p>“We will then see if there is any misunderstanding, lack of understanding or different interpretation. We’ll decide on Monday or Tuesday,” Manivannan told <span class="italic">DH</span>. “We will not have any difference of opinion on facts and data.” </p>.<p>The official maintained that the court order was “unambiguous”. </p>