Now, Hindutva Groups Demand Demolition Of Eidgah In Bengaluru’s Chamarajapet Maidan

After the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) stated that the property of the Chamarajapet Maidan in Bangalore belongs to the Karnataka Revenue Department, Hindu groups are now demanding the demolition of the Eidgah at the site.

The Karnataka Wakf board had applied for a ‘khata’ ( property legal documents) with the BBMP, which the latter rejected after the board failed to produce the ownership documents in the stipulated time. The BBMP also declared Karnataka Revenue Department to be the default owner of the land.

On Monday, Vishwa Sanatan Parishad President Bhaskaran said when it has been declared that the Eidgah Maidan belongs to the state government, “then why should there be an Eidgah tower in the Maidan?”

He said he will write a letter to the BBMP and the state government and also file a petition before the Karnataka High Court making the government and the revenue department parties to demolish the Eidgah tower.

The two-acre Eidgah Maidan in Bengaluru’s Chamrajpet area has become the bone of contention after several Hindutva groups started demanding Hindu festivals to be celebrated on the ground that has served as a place for Muslims to offer namaz during their festivals for decades.

The Wakf board claims that the land belongs to the Central Muslim Association (CMA), and cites the 1964 Supreme Court ruling, which gives them the ownership.

In June this year, the civic body even took back its claim on the land saying that it has no ownership of the property. With that, the row over the land seemed to have resolved.

However, now with the civic body declaring that the Eidgah Maidan belonged to the Revenue Department, the issue has resurfaced again.

Wakf Board Chairman Shafi Saadi had stated that the board would wage a legal battle against the BBMP’s decision. “The Supreme Court has given a verdict in 1965 that the Eidgah maidan is the property of the Wakf board and the decision is not tenable and the order amounts to contempt of court,” he had said.