The court has given a big decision in the Kashi Vishwanath temple and Gyanvapi mosque case.
Varanasi News: Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple vs Gyanvapi Masjid case was pending in Varanasi court since 1991. In this old case, litigant friend and advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi sought an archaeological survey through an application.
In the application, Vijay Shankar Rastogi had told that a survey of Araji Nos. 9130, 9131 and 9132 area of Gyanvapi campus should be done. Archaeological survey of a Bighe 9 Biswa land should be done with radar technology to try to find out whether the land is a remnant of the temple or not? Apart from this, breaking the floor of the disputed structure can be seen whether 100 feet high Jyotirlinga Swayambhu Vishwanath is present in it or not? Are the walls of the mosque of the ancient temple or not?
‘Radar technology survey will reveal the religious nature of the land’
Vijay Shankar Rastogi argued that the radar technique would reveal the religious nature of a Bigha 9 Biswa land in an archaeological survey. He argued that the fourth-century temple had a structure in the first floor and a basement in the ground floor, which has a 100 feet high Shivalinga. Archaeological excavations will clear this point. The temple was built thousands of years ago by King Vikramaditya in 2050 Vikram Samvat and then renovated by King Harishchandra in Satyuga and later in 1788 by Maharani Ahilyabai Holkar of Indore.This was the plea of the mosque side
On behalf of the mosque, the counsel for the Central Sunni Waqf Board said that according to the claim, when the temple was demolished, then the Jyotirlinga was present at the place where it is at present. At the same time, Akbar’s Finance Minister Todarmal built the temple with Narayan Bhatt, which is built on the same Jyotirlinga. How can a second Shivalinga fall under such a disputed structure? Therefore, there should not be digging. Like the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi, objecting to the archaeological report of the Vishwanath temple, objecting to the mosque side said that the situation is opposite. After the statement there, the court had called for a report in a state of contradiction, whereas no evidence has been found in the case here so far.
The judge approved the survey after hearing the arguments of both the parties
Masjid Paksha lawyer Abhay Nath Yadav said that the report could not be called for the submission of evidence. He also feared a breach of peace. Some similar arguments were also given by the Anjuman Arrangement Committee. After reviewing all the documents, Civil Judge (Senior Division Fast Track Court) Ashutosh Tiwari approved the archaeological survey, accepting the application of Vijay Shankar Rastogi, a friend of the temple side.