Civil suit filed in Mathura seeking ownership of Krishna Janmabhoomi land, removal of mosque

However, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, bars courts from entertaining litigation that would alter the status quo of a religious place as it existed in 1947

Published: 26th September 2020 02:47 PM  |   Last Updated: 26th September 2020 02:47 PM   |  A+A-

Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in UP's Mathura. (Photo| UP tourism)

Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in UP's Mathura. (Photo| UP tourism webiste)

Express News Service

LUCKNOW: Barely a few days ahead of a CBI court in Lucknow pronouncing its verdict in the Babri Masjid demolition case, a civil suit has been filed in a Mathura court on Friday seeking ownership of the entire 13.37 acres of Krishna Janmabhoomi land in the temple town and removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid.

The suit was filed by the ‘Bhagwan Srikrishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mauja Mathura Bazaar City’ through the 'next friend' Ranjana Agnihotri and six other devotees. Agnihotri, a Lucknow-based lawyer, had represented the Hindu Mahasabha in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit in various courts including the Supreme Court.

Despite the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, being in place, the civil suit was filed in the Mathura court. The Act bars courts from entertaining litigation that would alter the status quo of a religious place as it existed in 1947. However, the Act had exempted the litigation over the ownership of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land.

It may be noted that when the Supreme Court, in November 2019, had pronounced its verdict for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya, one of the parties was Sri Ram Lalla Virajman, who had filed a civil suit in Ayodhya in 1989 through his 'next friend' Triloki Nath Pandey.

The fresh suit filed by Srikrishna Virajman through Agnihotri said, "UP Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah or any member of Muslim community have no interest or right in the property of Katra Keshav Dev over an area measuring 13.37 acres and entire land vests in the deity Bhagwan Srikrishna Virajman.”

"This suit is being filed for removal of encroachment and superstructure illegally raised by committee of management of alleged Trust Masjid Idgah with the consent of Sunni Central Board of Waqf on land Khewat No.255 at Katra Keshav Dev, city Mathura belonging to deity Srikrishna Virajman," said one of the lawyers.

The site in Mathura is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Along with Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya and Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, it's one of the three sites which Hindu outfits including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) want to be restored to Hindus.

The main litigant, advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, told The New Indian Express that her petition had already been admitted by the Mathura court and that she expected to get the copy on Monday.

Over the provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which may be a stumbling block in the adjudication of the suit, Agnihotri said she was confident that the said Act would not be a problem in the adjudication of the suit filed by her. “I have drafted the suit after studying the provisions of the 1991 Act and it will not hamper my case. As it is, my petition has already been
admitted by the court,” she added.

After settling the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the Supreme Court of India had closed the possibility for fresh litigation to alter the status quo of sites such as those in Kashi and Mathura.

Moreover, after the apex court verdict in the Ayodhya title suit, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and VHP had declared that they would not stake claim to the Mathura and Kashi shrines.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp