After 48 years of legal battle, the Kalyan civil court has dismissed the suit filed by a Muslim trust claiming ownership of an idgah (prayer space) inside the historical Durgadi Fort in Kalyan. The civil court ruled in favor of the Maharashtra state government, determining that the trust’s claim was invalid due to the failure to file the lawsuit within the three-year window specified by the Limitation Act.
Court’s Ruling
Civil Judge Senior Division A.S. Lanjewar stated that the suit was barred by limitations, as the Muslim trust did not file the lawsuit within three years of the alleged dispossession. Consequently, the court declared that the trust’s claim was invalid.
History of the Legal Battle
The legal dispute over the ownership of the Durgadi temple and the idgah has been ongoing since 1976, when the Majlish-e-Mushavreen Majjid Trust filed the original suit. The case has drawn significant attention, with political leaders and religious organizations becoming involved over the years.
Court’s Decision on Ownership
The civil court ruled that the Durgadi prayer space is not the property of the Muslim trust, but rather belongs to the state government, specifically the Thane Collector. The trust authorities did not respond to questions about whether they would appeal the court’s decision.
Political Involvement and Historical Significance
This dispute has historical significance, as it was first raised by the late Balasaheb Thackeray. Later, it was taken up by Shiv Sena leaders, including the late Anand Dighe and Eknath Shinde. The Maharashtra government declared Durgadi Fort a heritage property in 1971, ensuring that its possession, occupation, and ownership remain with the state.
Trust’s Claim and Defendants
The trust had argued that the Durgadi idgah and temple were used for prayers by the local Muslim community until 1968. At that time, the government leased the premises to the Kalyan Municipal Council. The Shri Durgadi Devi Utsav Samiti Kalyan and some Hindu citizens of Kalyan city joined the case as defendants.
Recent Developments
In 2018, the Muslim trust filed an application in the Kalyan civil court to transfer the case to the Waqf Board in Aurangabad (Sambhajinagar), claiming the right to make decisions regarding their claims. However, the Magistrate’s Court rejected this application.
Political Reactions
Following the dismissal of the trust’s claims, leaders of Hindu organizations, including Shiv Sena, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and Sena UBT, expressed their satisfaction with the court’s decision. Dinesh Deshmukh, president of the Hindu Manch, pointed to records showing that there is a Durga temple on the Durgadi Fort, and the structure referred to as an idgah is actually a wall of the fort.
BJP MLA Ravindra Chavan expressed hope that the state government would soon implement the court’s order. Local Shiv Sena and Sena UBT functionaries also celebrated the court’s decision, crediting the late Balasaheb Thackeray for initiating the legal battle.
Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What was the court’s decision regarding the Muslim trust’s claim on the Durgadi Fort idgah?
- A) The court ruled in favor of the Muslim trust.
- B) The court ruled in favor of the state government.
- C) The court declared the property as a national monument.
- D) The court dismissed the case without a ruling.
- Why did the court dismiss the Muslim trust’s suit?
- A) The trust failed to prove its ownership.
- B) The suit was barred by limitations.
- C) The trust failed to provide sufficient evidence.
- D) The property was declared a heritage site.
- When did the legal battle over the ownership of Durgadi Fort begin?
- A) 1968
- B) 1976
- C) 1980
- D) 1990
- Who first raised the dispute over the Durgadi Fort idgah?
- A) Eknath Shinde
- B) Balasaheb Thackeray
- C) Ravindra Chavan
- D) Dinesh Deshmukh
- What did the court rule regarding the ownership of Durgadi Fort?
- A) The fort belongs to the Muslim trust.
- B) The fort belongs to the state government.
- C) The fort belongs to the Kalyan Municipal Council.
- D) The fort is a national property.