<p>Lucknow, Dec 31 (PTI) After the consecration of the Ram temple at Ayodhya on January 22, numerous temple-mosque disputes mushroomed in Uttar Pradesh (UP) in 2024. They culminated in Sambhal where four lives were lost after a court-ordered survey of Shahi Jama Masjid which Hindu groups claimed was the site of an ancient temple.</p>.<p>Here is a brief recap of religious disputes that surfaced this year in UP: SAMBHAL: Sambhal has been in the eye of the storm since November 19, when a Mughal-era mosque was surveyed on court orders following claims that a Harihar temple previously stood at the site.</p>.<p>Violence erupted during a second survey on November 24 as protesters gathered near the Shahi Jama Masjid and clashed with security personnel. Four people were killed and several injured in the violence.</p>.<p>BUDAUN: A Hindu outfit has moved a local court seeking permission to offer prayers at the Jama Masjid Shamsi, claiming it to be a temple. The court asked the Muslim side on Tuesday to conclude their arguments in the matter by December 10.</p>.<p>The issue dates back to 2022 when Mukesh Patel, the then convener of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, claimed that a Neelkanth Mahadev temple existed at the site of the mosque.</p>.<p>VARANASI: In the Gyanvapi case, Hindus claim that a temple existed at the site and it was demolished in the 17th century on the orders of Aurangzeb. According to Madan Mohan Yadav, the lawyer for the Hindu side, the Gyanvapi temple or the Adi Visheshwar Kashi Vishwanath Jyotirling was demolished on April 18, 1679 following Aurangzeb's orders.</p>.<p>Yadav said Aurangzeb's secretary, Wazir Saqi Mustaid Khan, has mentioned this in his diary 'Maasire Alamgiri' which is preserved in the Asiatic Society, Kolkata.</p>.<p>MATHURA: In the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, the controversy is related to the Shahi Idgah mosque that was built during Aurangzeb's time. It is alleged that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.</p>.<p>However, the Muslim side (the management committee of the Shahi Idgah and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board) to the dispute has opposed the plea on several grounds.</p>.<p>LUCKNOW: In Lucknow, the additional district judge on February 28 dismissed a revision plea that had challenged a lower court's order rejecting an objection against a civil suit that had sought the right to worship at the Laxman Teela, where the Teelewali Masjid is situated.</p>.<p>According to the civil suit filed by a Hindu side, a temple of Shesh Nagesh Teeleshwar Mahadev is situated in close vicinity of the mosque.</p>.<p>BAGHPAT: In February, a court in Baghpat dismissed a decades-old plea filed by a Muslim side over a site that Hindu devotees feel is the Mahabharat-era "Lakshagriha". The petitioners had claimed that it was a graveyard and the dargah of Sufi saint Sheikh Badruddin.</p>.<p>According to Ranveer Singh Tomar, the lawyer for the respondents, Civil Judge Junior Division of the District and Session Court Shivam Dwivedi dismissed the petition, saying there was neither a graveyard nor a dargah at the site in Barnawa.</p>.<p>JAUNPUR: A court here on December 16 has postponed the date of passing order for the survey of Atala Masjid till March 2 in view of the Supreme Court's instructions to all courts to refrain from passing orders in cases related to religious places under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.</p>.<p>In the Atala Masjid case, the suit was filed by the Swaraj Vahini Association (SVA) president Santosh Kumar Mishra. It sought the "disputed" property be declared 'Atala Devi Mandir' and followers of the Sanatan religion be allowed the right of worship at the site.</p>.<p>No final verdict has been delivered by the courts in these cases, as the Supreme Court on December 12 restrained all the courts in the country from entertaining and passing any effective interim or final orders on any lawsuits seeking reliefs including survey of religious places under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.</p>.<p>The direction of a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan came on a batch of pleas and cross pleas relating to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.</p>.<p>On December 16, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat had said that certain people, ever since the construction of Ayodhya's Ram temple, have started to believe that they can become "leaders of Hindus" by raking up such issues.</p>.<p>Delivering a lecture in Pune on 'India-The Vishwaguru' at Sahjeevan Vyakhyanmala (lecture series), Bhagwat advocated for an "inclusive society". "Every day a new matter (dispute) is being raked up. How can this be allowed? This cannot continue. India needs to show that we can live together," he said.</p>.<p>WHAT PEOPLE FEEL ON THE ISSUE: "The ordering of the survey in Sambhal by the magistrate was against the spirit of law. The magistrate should have issued a notice to the state and the mosque, and thereafter, the lawyers or the court ameens should have been appointed for the survey work. There was no urgency," Justice (retired) D P Singh told PTI.</p>.<p>Ankur Saxena, an advocate of the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court, however, had a different take. "Sooner or later, this facade and burden of secularism, which we have carried had to break at some point of time. Satyamev Jayate (Truth alone triumphs). The problem in my mind is the appeasement policy adopted by previous governments," Saxena told PTI.</p>.<p>Acharya Satyendra Das, the head priest of the Ram temple, Ayodhya, said, "Just the way the Ramjanmabhoomi case was decided, in the same manner, cases regarding evidence of temples should also be similarly decided by the court." Lucknow-based cleric and senior member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahli, when contacted, told PTI, "The best possible way out and what we have also been saying from day one is to implement the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 in letter and spirit." PTI NAV MAN KSS KSS KSS</p>
<p>Lucknow, Dec 31 (PTI) After the consecration of the Ram temple at Ayodhya on January 22, numerous temple-mosque disputes mushroomed in Uttar Pradesh (UP) in 2024. They culminated in Sambhal where four lives were lost after a court-ordered survey of Shahi Jama Masjid which Hindu groups claimed was the site of an ancient temple.</p>.<p>Here is a brief recap of religious disputes that surfaced this year in UP: SAMBHAL: Sambhal has been in the eye of the storm since November 19, when a Mughal-era mosque was surveyed on court orders following claims that a Harihar temple previously stood at the site.</p>.<p>Violence erupted during a second survey on November 24 as protesters gathered near the Shahi Jama Masjid and clashed with security personnel. Four people were killed and several injured in the violence.</p>.<p>BUDAUN: A Hindu outfit has moved a local court seeking permission to offer prayers at the Jama Masjid Shamsi, claiming it to be a temple. The court asked the Muslim side on Tuesday to conclude their arguments in the matter by December 10.</p>.<p>The issue dates back to 2022 when Mukesh Patel, the then convener of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, claimed that a Neelkanth Mahadev temple existed at the site of the mosque.</p>.<p>VARANASI: In the Gyanvapi case, Hindus claim that a temple existed at the site and it was demolished in the 17th century on the orders of Aurangzeb. According to Madan Mohan Yadav, the lawyer for the Hindu side, the Gyanvapi temple or the Adi Visheshwar Kashi Vishwanath Jyotirling was demolished on April 18, 1679 following Aurangzeb's orders.</p>.<p>Yadav said Aurangzeb's secretary, Wazir Saqi Mustaid Khan, has mentioned this in his diary 'Maasire Alamgiri' which is preserved in the Asiatic Society, Kolkata.</p>.<p>MATHURA: In the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, the controversy is related to the Shahi Idgah mosque that was built during Aurangzeb's time. It is alleged that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.</p>.<p>However, the Muslim side (the management committee of the Shahi Idgah and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board) to the dispute has opposed the plea on several grounds.</p>.<p>LUCKNOW: In Lucknow, the additional district judge on February 28 dismissed a revision plea that had challenged a lower court's order rejecting an objection against a civil suit that had sought the right to worship at the Laxman Teela, where the Teelewali Masjid is situated.</p>.<p>According to the civil suit filed by a Hindu side, a temple of Shesh Nagesh Teeleshwar Mahadev is situated in close vicinity of the mosque.</p>.<p>BAGHPAT: In February, a court in Baghpat dismissed a decades-old plea filed by a Muslim side over a site that Hindu devotees feel is the Mahabharat-era "Lakshagriha". The petitioners had claimed that it was a graveyard and the dargah of Sufi saint Sheikh Badruddin.</p>.<p>According to Ranveer Singh Tomar, the lawyer for the respondents, Civil Judge Junior Division of the District and Session Court Shivam Dwivedi dismissed the petition, saying there was neither a graveyard nor a dargah at the site in Barnawa.</p>.<p>JAUNPUR: A court here on December 16 has postponed the date of passing order for the survey of Atala Masjid till March 2 in view of the Supreme Court's instructions to all courts to refrain from passing orders in cases related to religious places under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.</p>.<p>In the Atala Masjid case, the suit was filed by the Swaraj Vahini Association (SVA) president Santosh Kumar Mishra. It sought the "disputed" property be declared 'Atala Devi Mandir' and followers of the Sanatan religion be allowed the right of worship at the site.</p>.<p>No final verdict has been delivered by the courts in these cases, as the Supreme Court on December 12 restrained all the courts in the country from entertaining and passing any effective interim or final orders on any lawsuits seeking reliefs including survey of religious places under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.</p>.<p>The direction of a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan came on a batch of pleas and cross pleas relating to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.</p>.<p>On December 16, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat had said that certain people, ever since the construction of Ayodhya's Ram temple, have started to believe that they can become "leaders of Hindus" by raking up such issues.</p>.<p>Delivering a lecture in Pune on 'India-The Vishwaguru' at Sahjeevan Vyakhyanmala (lecture series), Bhagwat advocated for an "inclusive society". "Every day a new matter (dispute) is being raked up. How can this be allowed? This cannot continue. India needs to show that we can live together," he said.</p>.<p>WHAT PEOPLE FEEL ON THE ISSUE: "The ordering of the survey in Sambhal by the magistrate was against the spirit of law. The magistrate should have issued a notice to the state and the mosque, and thereafter, the lawyers or the court ameens should have been appointed for the survey work. There was no urgency," Justice (retired) D P Singh told PTI.</p>.<p>Ankur Saxena, an advocate of the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court, however, had a different take. "Sooner or later, this facade and burden of secularism, which we have carried had to break at some point of time. Satyamev Jayate (Truth alone triumphs). The problem in my mind is the appeasement policy adopted by previous governments," Saxena told PTI.</p>.<p>Acharya Satyendra Das, the head priest of the Ram temple, Ayodhya, said, "Just the way the Ramjanmabhoomi case was decided, in the same manner, cases regarding evidence of temples should also be similarly decided by the court." Lucknow-based cleric and senior member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahli, when contacted, told PTI, "The best possible way out and what we have also been saying from day one is to implement the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 in letter and spirit." PTI NAV MAN KSS KSS KSS</p>