Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. That after the judgment in Ayodhya case delivered on 9th November, 2019 the plaintiffs alongwith several other devotees visited Qutub Minar two three times and lastly on 23 December 2019, purchased book from the Book sale counter available at entrance gate. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have studied a number of historical books, literary works and available materials regarding the history of Qutub Complex.

8. That from the well­established historical fact it is clear that a number of temples with deities were existing within the temple complex before the construction of the alleged Quwwat­ul­Islam Mosque and nature of Hindu religious property continued and the Muslims never declared the place as Waqf property before or after the construction was raised under the command of Qutub­din Aibak and therefore, the construction could not be used as Mosque at any point of time.

22. This provision has to be read in consonance with the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The contention of the plaintiffs that section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 excludes an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the AMASR Act and hence, the present suit is not barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 would, in my opinion, frustrate the purpose of the act itself.

23. Section 4 (3)(a) has to be seen in the larger context of the Places of Worship Act. The object of the Act is to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947. By placing reliance on the Lok Sabha Debates, the purpose of enacting the law was observed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Ayodhya Case;

29. There is a presumption of correctness in every official act. The Notification No. DL 387 Edu. Dated 16.01.1914 has not been challenged till date. Even plaintiffs have not challenged the validity of the said notification. Consequently, it stands valid. Hence, as per the provisions of the act, the ownership lies with the Government and the plaintiffs have no right to claim restoration and right to religious worship in the same without challenging the notification itself.

30. India had a culturally rich history. It has been ruled over by numerous dynasties. During arguments, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued on the point of national shame. However, nobody has denied that wrongs were committed in the past but such wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Ayodhya Case has beautifully penned down;