The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to file their responses to a writ petition claiming that a Hindu temple is located within the Taj Mahal premises.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal issued the order on Monday, instructing both the Union government and the ASI to submit counter-affidavits in the matter. The court also issued a formal notice to Pankaj Kumar Verma, who is named as a respondent in the case alongside the government parties.
The writ petition, filed on July 3, was moved by the Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya temple, advocate Hari Shankar Jain, and four other petitioners. The legal challenge seeks to overturn prior rulings by Agra district courts that denied requests for a formal survey and photography of the disputed area.
Challenged District Court Rulings
Representing the petitioners, Jain argued before the High Court that appointing an advocate commissioner and conducting a photographic log of the site are essential steps to properly resolve the dispute. He stated that the local trial court had incorrectly rejected his application for a survey commission, and that a subsequent revision petition was also wrongly dismissed as not maintainable.
The petition directly challenges orders from the Agra district court, where both the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the Additional District Judge had declined to authorize an Advocate Commission to survey the site.
Origin Of The Dispute
The current petition stems from a long-standing declaratory suit originally filed in 2015. That suit, which remains pending in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Agra, seeks an official declaration that the Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya temple exists inside the Taj Mahal complex.
While the main 2015 suit is still awaiting final adjudication, the petitioners had moved interim applications to inspect and document the property. The refusal of the lower Agra courts to grant these requests prompted the petitioners to appeal to the High Court.
