UP court dismisses 53-year-old suit by Muslim party claiming rights over Badruddin Shah Dargah

A Baghpat district court in Uttar Pradesh recently dismissed a long-standing 53-year-old plea filed by a Muslim party seeking rights over a site claimed to be housing a graveyard and the dargah (tomb) of Sufi saint Sheikh Badruddin Shah..Civil judge Shivam Dwivedi refused to entertain the plea filed against Hindu-defendants.“The plaintiff has completely failed to prove the present case, due to which in the opinion of the court, dismissal of the plaintiff's suit seems justified," the Court ordered. .By way of background, Mukim Khan, a dargah caretaker and a resident of Barnawa village in Baghpat, moved the Court claiming that a group of Hindus had committed trespass on the property.He took legal action by filing a lawsuit in 1970. He named Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj, a Hindu priest, as the defendant and claimed that an ancient mound in Barnawa was a dargah and graveyard belonging to Sheikh Badruddin. Mukim Khan alleged that Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj, who was not a local resident, intended to demolish the site to construct a major Hindu pilgrimage destination at the site. .However, Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj argued that the area described by Mukim Khan as a dargah and graveyard had a Shiva temple and remnants of the Lakshagriha (the House of Lacquer burnt down by the Kauravas in a plot to assassinate the Pandavas in the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata).It was also emphasized that a section of land on the mound had been acquired by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) while the rest of the land was owned by the Shri Gandhi Dham Committee.Both Mukhim Khan and Krishnadutt Ji Maharaj passed away during the pendency of the suit, following which they were represented by their legal heirs..The Court took into consideration a declaration issued in 1920 by the government at that time, which stated that under Section 3(3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the mound had been officially designated as Lakshagriha."The present suit is instituted for the relief of mandatory and perpetual injunction. The defendants have failed to prove by which ground mentioned in section 41 the present suit is barred. In the circumstances described, the present does not appear to be barred by Sections 34, 39, 41 of the Act 1963. Hence this issue is decided in the negative against the defendants," the Court proceeded to hold while dismissing the suit. .[Read Order]