The Allahabad High Court on Monday issued notice to the Union government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on a petition challenging orders of the Agra courts refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a survey, inspection, photography and videography of the Taj Mahal in connection with a civil suit claiming that the monument is an ancient Hindu temple known as “Tejo Mahalaya”.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed the order after hearing Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, who appeared for the petitioners. The Court sought responses from the Union Government and the ASI and directed that the matter be listed for further hearing.
The petition was filed on behalf of the deity, Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman, through next friend Advocate Jain, along with several devotees. The plea challenged the orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, and the Additional District Judge, Agra, refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the inspection of the monument.
The dispute arises out of a declaratory civil suit instituted in 2015 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra. The plaintiffs claimed that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple known as Tejo Mahalaya and sought a decree of declaration and permanent injunction recognising the monument as a Hindu temple.
Filed through Advocate Saumya Srivastava, the writ petition sought permission for Hindus to perform darshan and puja within the monument, contending that such worship was protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application in 2019 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the monument and prepare photographs and videography of its structural features. According to the petitioners, such evidence was necessary to establish the architectural and archaeological characteristics relied upon in the suit.
The trial court, however, rejected the application. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce revenue records such as Khasra and Khatauni to establish the exact Gata number of the disputed property and noted discrepancies between the area and boundaries described by the plaintiffs and those reflected in the defendants’ records, including the extent of 77 bighas mentioned in the pleadings.
The petitioners challenged that order before the Additional District Judge, Agra. The revision petition was dismissed in April 2026 after being held to be not maintainable.
Aggrieved by both orders, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that the courts below committed patent illegality and material irregularity and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. They argued that the rejection of the application was based on considerations wholly irrelevant to the limited purpose of appointing an Advocate Commissioner under the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to the petitioners, there was no dispute regarding the identity of the property since the Taj Mahal is a universally recognised protected monument. Therefore, issues relating to revenue records, Gata numbers and land boundaries could not have formed the basis for rejecting an application intended only to preserve evidence regarding the physical features of the structure.
The petition further submitted that the structural characteristics, architectural symbols and locked portions of the monument could not be effectively established through oral evidence alone. It argued that authoritative photographs, videography, and inspection by a court-appointed commissioner were essential for proper adjudication of the dispute.
The petitioners also contended that since the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the control and management of the ASI, they have no independent right to enter restricted areas or undertake photography and videography within the premises. Consequently, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is the only legally permissible method to secure such evidence before the trial court.
Reiterating the claims made in the original suit, the petitioners asserted that the structure was originally constructed during 1155-56 AD by Raja Paramardi Dev as a Shiva temple dedicated to Lord Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman.
According to the pleadings, the monument subsequently came under the ownership of Raja Maan Singh and later Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur before Mughal emperor Shah Jahan allegedly took possession of the structure and converted it into a mausoleum in memory of Mumtaz Mahal by incorporating certain Islamic architectural features.
The petition further claimed that more than 109 archaeological, historical and architectural features indicate the monument’s Hindu origin. These include the presence of a Kalash atop the marble dome, lotus-petal motifs decorating the dome, and a structure situated on the south-eastern side of the complex, which was recorded in ASI records as a Gaushala. The petition contended that such features were characteristic of Hindu temple architecture and not of an Islamic mausoleum.
The petitioners further alleged that the ASI had unlawfully permitted Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays while restricting Hindu worship and keeping several floors and chambers of the monument locked from public access. According to them, use of the property for any purpose other than Hindu worship was unlawful.
Besides seeking the setting aside of the orders passed by the Agra courts, the petitioners requested the High Court to direct the trial court to reconsider the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on its merits. They further sought interim directions requiring the Director General of the ASI to facilitate photography and videography of the monument, both internally and externally, in the presence of the petitioners and to place the photographic record before the High Court for consideration during the proceedings.
The post Allahabad High Court issues notice to Centre, ASI on plea seeking Taj Mahal survey over Tejo Mahalaya claim appeared first on India Legal.