By Anwarulhaq Baig
NEW DELHI—After Kashi and Mathura mosque, the Hindutva groups have made claims over the 13th century Juma Masjid in Erandol town of Mahashtra.
The mosque, according to recorded history, was built during the Khilji era.
The Hindutva groups making claims over the mosque say that it was either a Jain temple or a site related to Pandavas and converted into a mosque during the early period of Muslim rule in India.
However, the mosque’s custodians have submitted evidence to support their claim that the mosque has been a place of worship for Muslims for centuries and it was not built over ther site of any Jain or Hindu place of worship.
The matter is currently under hearing before the Supreme Court which has passed an ad interim order in favour of the mosque.
The apex court passed the order on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Juma Masjid Trust. The Trust has challenged the Bombay High Court’s order directing them to hand over the keys of the mosque to the Erandol Municipal Council of Jalgaon district.
Speaking to India Tomorrow, Advocate Niyaz Ahmed, whose father Sharifuddin Zainuddin Shaikh served as the mosque’s custodian until his death in 2002, has submitted evidence to support his claim.
He states that the mosque’s construction began during the reign of Alauddin Khalji in the 13th century and was completed during the Mughal era under Shah Jahan in 1610.
According to Niyaz Ahmed’s claims, mosque’s architectural style resembles mosques in Daulatabad (Aurangabad district) and Ahmedabad (Gujarat) from that era. Its single-domed structure and architectural style also differ from the triple-domed mosques typically built by the Mughals, reflecting its origins in the Khilji period.
Afterward, the Mughal rulers handed over the mosque as a waqf (endowment) to the local Muslim community. The Mughal rulers had also granted agricultural lands for the maintenance of the mosque and a separate ground near the Anjani river for Eid prayers, which continues till date.
The government had earlier acquired more than 50 acres of land belonging to the mosque for constructing a dam. At present, the mosque premises, including its Namaz building, compound walls, and main gate (Sadar Darwaza), approximately cover 2.5 to 3 acres of land, form part of mosque complex..
Niyaz Ahmed stated that the mosque committee has all necessary official documents, land records, and certificates from the British government since 1861 under Sir George Roswell, who issued a deed recognizing Muslim ownership. An imperial deed from the Mughal era names ‘Ameer Hajir, son of Ameer Khatib’ of Kaghzipura as the owner. Additionally, numerous government departments have records with official seals acknowledging the mosque and its endowed lands.
Advocate Niyaz noted that the custodians of the Juma Masjid had a valid certificate in copper plate from the Mughal rulers, which the mosque’s managing committee possessed until the 1920s. During its civil suit in the 1930s, it was submitted as evidence in the Jalgaon district court, he added.
According to Niyaz Ahmed, during the initial survey of Erandol town by the British, the mosque land was assigned CTS No. 1290, which is now updated to CTS No. 1100 in the new land records maintained by the City Survey department.
The legal battle intensified in the 1930s when a dispute arose over the mosque’s land ownership, leading to a landmark court ruling affirming the mosque’s status as a waqf property.
According to Advocate Niyaz, in 1932, some parties from the Muslim community filed a case in the Jalgaon District Court claiming ownership over the endowed lands, calling them ancestral property. However, the court dismissed their claim, ruling that the lands were waqf properties belonging to the Juma Masjid, and not personal possessions. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Bombay High Court, where a two-judge bench of Justices Tayyab ji and Barlee upheld the district court’s verdict on February 19, 1937, reaffirming the mosque’s ownership.
Niyaz Ahmed stated that some miscreants spread rumours in the 1960s that the mosque land belonged to the five Pandavas, citing the CTS No. 1100 entry that mentioned ‘Sarkar’ (government). However, he questioned how a property documented as a mosque since 1922 and paying taxes accordingly could suddenly be transferred to ‘Sarkar’. The mosque committee legally contested this claim.
The dispute dates back to 1971 when the Maharashtra state government, invoking the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960, pasted a notice on the wall of the mosque, despite it being under the custodianship of the mosque’s managing committee. Then mosque committee’s president, Sharifuddin Zainuddin Shaikh, objected in 1971, stating that while the mosque is historical, it does not meet the criteria for being an ancient monument. But, the state’s Archaeological Department installed its board on the mosque premises.
In 1987, communal riots in the neighbouring town had repercussions in Erandol, with some miscreants setting the mosque’s inner gate on fire and demolishing one of its minarets. On June 2, 1995, a communal mob forcibly entered the mosque, damaging the burnt gate and desecrating copies of the Holy Quran kept inside. The Muslim community demanded strict action from the Maharashtra government and police, leading to the filing of FIRs and arrests of some miscreants.
Niyaz Ahmed clarified that the area referred to as ‘Panduvaada’ (locality of Pandavas) by Hindu elements was actually inhabited by the ‘Pande’ community, whose occupation was cooking. It was colloquially called ‘Pandevaada’ (Pande locality) after them, but the miscreants absurdly linked it to the five Pandavas and claimed the mosque land as government property, despite the mosque being established on its original site and not an encroached land. Niyaz Ahmed informed that a verse from the Quran’s Surah Al-Jinn is inscribed on one of the mosque’s walls.
According to the senior advocate, while the mosque has never been reconstructed since its foundation, it requires some repair work, for which the monument authority has conducted an aerial survey.
In a big relief to the Muslim community in Jalgaon district, the apex court recently directed the Municipal Council to keep the keys of the gates and open them for worshippers to offer namaz five times a day at the Juma Masjid in Erandol town.
A two-judge bench of the apex court comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan passed the order recently while hearing a special leave petition filed by the Juma Masjid Trust against the Bombay High Court’s April 4, 2024 judgment.
The dispute arose when a Hindu group, Pandavwada Sangharsh Samiti (PSS), filed a complaint on May 18, 2023, claiming that the mosque was originally a Jain temple and accusing the Muslim community of encroachments. Acting on the complaint, the Jalgaon District Collector passed an order under Sections 144 and 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code on July 11, 2023, restricting the entry of worshippers and people and directing the Masjid Trust to hand over the keys to the Municipal Council.
The Masjid Trust immediately challenged the order in the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench through a criminal writ petition. The High Court initially stayed the Collector’s order on July 18, 2023, and directed the keys to be handed over to the Trust’s president. However, on April 4, 2024, the High Court reversed its stance and ordered the Trust to hand over the keys to the chief officer of the Jalgaon Municipal Council by April 13.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court examined the complex historical background and legal issues surrounding the Juma Masjid. The Trust’s counsel, Advocate S.S. Kazi, argued that the mosque has been in existence since immemorial times, with records dating back to 1861 when it was recognized as a service award (Inam) land for religious services. Advocate Kazi cited government records, including a gazette notification dated February 19, 1977, which declared the Jumma Masjid an ancient and historical monument under the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960. Notably, the notification listed the ownership as “Government and Trust jointly.”
Talking to India Tomorrow, Advocate Kazi informed that they submitted before the apex court that the District Judge had framed a scheme for the proper management of the Juma Masjid in a civil suit in 1931, which was later affirmed by the Bombay High Court in 1937.
Raising several concerns over the High Court’s order, Justice Surya Kant questioned how the Trust could continue to manage the mosque after it was declared a Wakf Property. “The earlier society, trust, etc., will discontinue forthwith after the Wakf Act has come into force. If there is a masjid, that masjid becomes the Board’s property. This has to be managed and looked after by the Wakf Board. For that purpose, you can constitute the committee, but you cannot say that there is a Trust and you will hand over the property to the Trust. You are under statutory obligation to look after the property; you cannot hand over to any private entity,” Justice Kant observed.
To which, Advocate Kazi replied that the Wakf Board for the State of Maharashtra registered the Juma Masjid as a Wakf Property in 2009, after which the Trust came to be registered under Section 36 of the Wakf Act and managed by a committee.
However, the apex court bench noted that the dispute involved harmonizing the provisions related to the Wakf Board’s authority and the mosque’s status as an ancient monument, where namaz and prayers are performed regularly.
In its detailed directions, the Supreme Court ruled “the key of the main entrance gate of the entire compound shall remain with the Municipal Council. There shall be a status quo regarding the Masjid compound, and the same shall be under the management and control of the Wakf Board or the appellant-Committee with the consent of the Wakf Board until further orders. The ingress and egress to other temples or monuments in the main compound shall be free from all types of hindrances, and people of other religions and/or the public at large shall be allowed to visit the other ancient monuments/temples without any disturbance. The key of the rear side gate shall also remain with the Municipal Council. However, it shall be the duty and responsibility of the Municipal Council to depute an official to open that gate well before the time for Namaz starts in the morning and until all Namaz prayers are performed throughout the day. The keys shall be handed over to the Chief Executive Officer/Executive Officer of the Municipal Council during the course of the day. However, no encroachment of any type shall be made by any of the parties.”
Justice Surya Kant emphasized the need to harmonize the provisions, stating, “It is an ancient monument, but at the same time, it’s a Masjid where namaz is done…To harmonize the provisions, it appears from the property that there is a Masjid where namaz is offered, etc., and all the rituals are performed. There is some open space which is a park and because it is an ancient monument, so the surroundings are there. There is probably a Jain temple also. So the park will be looked after by the municipality because that’s a property under the Monuments Act…If there is any Society of Jains, who look after, then they will look after that temple. Masjid part only Wakf Board can take care and not any private entity.”
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision, Advocate Kazi breathed a sigh of relief, stating, “We are grateful to the Supreme Court for upholding our rights and recognizing the long-standing existence of the Juma Masjid.”
However, the Pandavwada Sangharsh Samiti expressed disappointment with the ruling.
The Municipal Council of Erandol has welcomed the Supreme Court’s directions.
However, other members of the Muslim community closely associated with the mosque management committee felt that the main issue is the possession of the Masjid. They believe the key to the mosque gates should be with the custodian of the Juma Masjid.
Despite facing challenges, the mosque’s custodians are committed to preserving its historical legacy and ensuring its continued use as a place of worship for future generations.
