Bhojshala case: Intervener claims direct descendance

Indore: An intervener in Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque case on Wednesday told Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court that he was a direct descendant of Maulana Kamaluddin Chisti and opposed the attempt to change the religious character of the site.

Qazi Moinuddin, through his counsel advocate NA Sheikh, told the bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi that his family's connection to the site traces back several centuries and attempted to support his claims with documents including sanats and land records.





Sheikh, who had filed the intervention in the petition by Hindu Front for Justice, placed on record a family tree obtained from registrar records of the erstwhile Dhar federal court showing Qazi Moinuddin's lineage and asserted that it confers upon him rights over the land, its customs and traditions, and the operations and maintenance of the Kamal Maula Mosque.

Sheikh relied on historical sanats to argue that parcels of land--- 100 bighas and later 50 bighas---- were granted to the ancestors of Kamaluddin. These grants were issued by successive rulers of Dhar and reaffirmed over time in records, demonstrating continuity of recognition.

The court sought to know the validity of the sanats which seem to signify permission to use the land. Sheikh clarified that the sanats were documents issued to grant land and amounted to ownership that is passed on in the family either to the eldest son or to the designated son.

Sheikh submitted khasra entries, with specific reference to khasra number 313 — the disputed site. This is now reflected as survey number 604, he told the court, arguing that the site and some adjoining land was given as grant to Moinuddin's family.

He argued that these entries establish uninterrupted and peaceful possession by the lineage, including the presence of structures such as the mosque within the recorded land.

The court questioned the ownership claim, referring to Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) taking over the disputed site as a protected monument in 1904. Sheikh furthered an argument by senior advocate Shobha Menon saying that there was no acquisition or notification issued to this effect. Any interruption or regulation in later years, including ASI's actions, does not negate the historical continuity of possession and use, he said.

The intervenors and their predecessors have continued to exercise rights over the site, including conducting religious practices, Sheikh added.

He referred to the statutory framework governing ancient monuments and said entry and usage of a religious site must consider the concurrence of persons in charge of its religious affairs. Any arrangement affecting access or usage must necessarily account for intervener's role.

He reiterated that the intervenors' rights, rooted in lineage, grants, and continuous possession, must be duly considered before any determination is made.

The court also heard arguments by advocate Tousif Warsi, who appeared on behalf of Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, a respondent on the petition filed by the Hindu Front for Justice. Warsi accused ASI of filing ‘mechanical replies' in three different petitions and shifting their stand on the same disputed site. He referred to a British high commissioner's letter to the then Madhya Pradesh chief minister to argue the point that the idol housed in the British Museum in London was, in fact, not that of Vagdevi, but of Ambika.

Warsi also dwelt on the historical aspects of Dhar and the disputed site to establish that no records show that a temple was demolished to construct a mosque. He will continue his arguments on Thursday.
Check AP SSC 10th Result 2026 on TOI