Verdict In Laksha Griha Case
Hindus get ownership rights of 100
bighas of land after 53-year-long legal battle
SARASIJ MAJUMDER
After
a 53-year-long legal battle, a local court in Baghpat. Uttar Pradesh, has
pronounced its verdict in the Lakshgriha-Mazar dispute, ruling in favour of the
Hindu side
In
a landmark judgment delivered on February 5, 2024, a local court in Baghpat, (One of the 5villages, Pandavas asked) Uttar
Pradesh, concluded a 53-year-long legal battle by awarding ownership rights
over 100 bighas of land and a tomb to the Hindu side in the Lakshagriha-Mazar
dispute.
The
court’s ruling, in favour of respondent Krishna Dutt Ji Maharaj, recognised the
ancient mound as Lakshagriha or JATU-GRIHA (Lakshamandap), a historical site mentioned in the
ancient epic Mahabharata. The decision dismisses the claims put forth by the
Muslim side regarding a Dargah and cemetery.
The
contested site, located on an ancient hill near the confluence of the Hindon
and Krishni rivers in Barnawa village, Baghpat district, has been at the centre
of a longstanding controversy. The area, now under the protection of the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), once housed a tomb of the Sufi saint
Badruddin Shah and a graveyard.
THE STORY FROM MAHABHARATA.
Purochana was hired by Shakuni.
He plotted the death of Pandavas and their mother.
Karna objected this because firstly, this is a stupid plan.
Pandavas are not such a fools that Shakuni expects them to be.
They are sons of Gods. They cannot be murdered like this. Its ridiculous.
Secondly, the one and only way to beat Pandavas is in the battlefield.
There was no other way.
At least Karna had some sense about the possible and the impossible.
The
legal dispute traces its roots back to 1970 when Mukim Khan, the then
‘mutwalli’ (caretaker) of the graveyard, initiated legal proceedings, seeking
to assert ownership over the land. Khan aimed to prevent Hindus from
encroaching on the site, desecrating graves, and performing ‘havan’ ceremonies.
Krishnadutt
Maharaj, a local Hindu priest, became a defendant in the case. The Hindu
community argued that the site held historical significance as the location of
the ‘Lakshagriha, a palace made of lac that Duryodhana had constructed to trap
and kill the Pandavas.
Ranveer
Singh Tomar, the lawyer representing the Hindu side, emphasised the court
order’s scrutiny of the plaintiff’s claims, revealing “glaring loopholes.” The
Muslim side had claimed that the Sufi saint’s tomb was 600 years old, and a
graveyard emerged after his death, designated as waqf property by the ruling
‘Shah’ of that era. However, they failed to provide the ruler’s name, and
government records did not mention the graveyard.
The court took notice of the Official
Gazette dated December 12, 1920, produced by the defendants. In this document,
the ASI stated: “A little mound to the south of the town called ‘Lakha Mandap’
is supposed to be the scene of an attempt to burn the Pandavas, situated in
Barnawa, (BARANAVATI, as stated in MAHABHARATA) 19 miles NW from Meerut in Sardhana tehsil.
Additionally,
the court observed that the Muslim side could not establish whether the
disputed site was waqf property or a graveyard in 1920. This crucial historical
documentation played a pivotal role in the court’s decision.
In
the aftermath of the verdict, heightened security measures have been
implemented at Lakshagriha, and the police have been placed on alert. The
ruling has significant implications for the religious and historical narratives
associated with the site.
This
development marks the end of a protracted legal battle, bringing closure to a
complex dispute that has spanned over five decades. The judgment not only
recognizes the historical and cultural significance of the Lakshagriha site but
also upholds the rights of the Hindu community over the contested land and
tomb.
The
Lakshagriha-Mazar dispute has been closely watched, and the verdict is expected
to have broader implications for similar cases involving historical and
religious sites across the country. The meticulous examination of historical
records and the ASI’s documentation set a precedent for the resolution of such
disputes, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based decisions in matters of
historical and cultural significance.
This is not the end. Perhaps, END of beginning. The case will surely escalate to Supreme Court. However, the case is strong in favour of us--the HINDUS.
Source,
and acknowledgement:
Organiser:
https://organiser.org/
Dainik
Bhaskar
Discussion
with a local school teacher, when I visited the site about an year ago, who desired to remain anonymous.
Comments
Post a Comment