Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute Sees New Legal Intervention in Madhya Pradesh
The protracted legal battle over the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, witnessed a significant development on Monday. Qazi Moinuddin, asserting himself as a direct descendant of Kamal Maulana Chishti, formally submitted an intervention application before the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Court Grants Hearing to Intervener in Historic Dispute
A division bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi acknowledged the application. The bench granted Qazi Moinuddin the right to be heard and scheduled the matter for arguments on April 2, 2024. This hearing will also consider a series of other intervention applications related to the case.
The intervention was filed in response to an existing petition by the Hindu Front for Justice. Qazi Moinuddin identified himself as a resident of Dargah, Kamal Maula, in Dhar, and the son of the late Qazi Faizuddin.
Claim of Hereditary Custodianship and Historical Legacy
In his application, Moinuddin presented a detailed lineage claim. He described himself as a direct descendant of Hazarat Kamal Maulana Chishti, the religious figure historically credited with establishing the Kamal Maula Masjid between 1305 and 1307 AD.
Furthermore, he asserted his current role as the Mutawalli—the hereditary custodian—of the Waqf (Islamic endowment) associated with the mosque. He argued that the site has functioned as a Jama Masjid, hosting Friday prayers for centuries, and that a Waqf was established specifically to safeguard its religious character.
To substantiate his claims, Moinuddin submitted historical revenue records dating back to the period of 1926-1928.
Legal Arguments and Opposition from Hindu Front
Moinuddin's core legal contention is that, as the residing Mutawalli of the adjacent Waqf property, any judicial order stemming from the Hindu Front for Justice's petition would directly impact his statutory responsibilities under the Waqf Act of 1995. He maintains this makes him a necessary party to the proceedings.
However, the application faced immediate opposition. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, counsel for the Hindu Front for Justice, objected to Moinuddin's intervention. Jain argued that the applicant lacked the necessary legal standing (locus standi) and contested the characterization of the monument as Waqf property.
Jain also stated that all relevant stakeholders, including the Malauna Kamaluddin Welfare Society, had already been included as respondents in the original petition, implying the new intervention was redundant.
The court, after noting the arguments from both sides, confirmed that the substantive debate on the intervention application would be heard on the scheduled date of April 2.
