The Places of Worship Act, 1991 does not bar the determination of the religious character of a place of worship, which must be established through evidence in court.

JUDGMENT :

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)

1. These connected five cases filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India have been nominated to this Court by orders of Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice dated 29.11.2023.

2. Defendant no. 1, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid filed three cases under Article 227 No. 3341 of 2017 (Earlier Writ Petition No. 32565 of 1998) assailing the revisional order dated 23.09.1998 and order dated 18.10.1997 passed by trial court on application 96/C filed by plaintiffs, deciding Issue No. 2 in regard to applicability of Section 4 of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1991’).

3. Case No. 3844 of 2021 filed under Article 227 challenges the order passed on 08.04.2021 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C., Varanasi on application, being Paper No. 266-Ga directing for survey by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in Original Suit No. 610 of 1991.

4. Case No. 1521 of 2020 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Varanasi rejecting the application 270-Ga of petitioner-defendant no. 1 and application 274-Ga of defendant no. 2, wherein a prayer was made for staying the proceedings of Original Suit No. 610 of 1991 on the basis of interim order granted by this Court on 13.10.1998 in Writ Petition No. 3341 of 2017.

5. Defendant No. 2, U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow had filed two cases under Article 227 No. 234 of 2021 and 3562 of 2021. Case No. 234 of 2021 (Earlier Writ-C No. 18576 of 1999) raises challenge to the revisional order passed on 23.09.1998 and order dated 18.10.1997 passed by trial court on Issue No. 2 holding that Section 4 of the Act of 1991 was not attracted and the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

6. Case No. 3562 of 2021 assails the order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) F.T.C., Varanasi directing for the scientific survey by ASI on the application moved by plaintiffs being Paper No. 266-Ga.

FACTS

7. Plaintiffs-respondent nos. 3 to 6 of Petition No. 3341 of 2017 filed Original Suit No. 610 of 1991, Ancient Idol of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar and others vs. Anjuman Intezamia Masajid and another before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi on 15.10.1991, claiming following reliefs:-

“(a) By a decree of this Hon'ble Court it be declared that the structure standing over and above the cellars (Tahkhana) and the adjoining part of the old temple of plaintiff no. l together with the Naubat Khana fully detailed and discribed in Schedule ‘A’ and shown with red hatchedlines in the plaint map towards North of the temple of lord Visheweshwar and a house lying to the east of the said Naubat Khana is the property of the plaintiff no.1 and the devotees of lord Visheshwar i.e. the Hindus at large have every right to use it as place of worship and to renovate and reconstruct their temple adding it with the remaining portion of the temple structure still in existence in any manner they decide in which the defendants have no right, title or interest or any kind whatsoever and the entire Muslim community represented by the defendants have no right to occupy as their occupation is illegal.

(b) By a decree of mandatory injunction the defendants be ordered to remove its effects from the portion shown with red hatched lines in the plaint map fully detailed and described in Schedule "A" of the plaint by handing over possession over the said structures to the plaintiffs.

(c) By decree of prohibitory injunction the defendants their agents and servants be permanently restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over properties and the structures mentioned in Schedule "A" of the plaint in any way from performing religious, ceremonies, Sewa Puja and Rag Bhog etc. and re-modeling, repairing, reconstructing adding with the remaining portion of the temple of lord Visheshwar existing at spot.”

8. In the plaint, it has been alleged that part and partial of o