Allahabad High Court on Monday allowed the Sambhal district court to resume proceedings on a temple-mosque dispute involving the Shahi Jama Masjid, where violence during a survey had claimed four lives last November.

A single-judge bench rejected the mosque committee’s review petition that sought a bar on any proceedings in the district court, which had ordered the survey to determine whether the ruins of a temple lay under the mosque.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, who had reserved his order on May 13, upheld the district court’s decision to appoint an advocate commissioner for a survey of the mosque.

“I find that the court below (district court) has not committed any error, irregularity or illegality,” the high court said, adding that the appointment of “advocate commission has not caused any prejudice”.

However, two hurdles remain before the Hindu side, who expect the survey to establish that the mosque was built after razing a Shiva temple, and want the site handed over to them on these grounds.

One, the Supreme Court had, while hearing a petition from the mosque committee, put a stay on the survey findings being made public, and asked that the report be placed before the district court in a sealed envelope.

Two, the Supreme Court has restricted all courts in the country from passing any effective interim or final orders on disputes relating to places of worship while it examines a challenge to a 1991 law that prohibits the conversion of one religion’s sites into those of another.

The high court, however, rejected the Sambhal mosque committee’s plea that the district court had by ordering the survey violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

“(The) present suit is not prima facie barred by provisions of the Act of 1991, in fact, it has been filed seeking right to access to property in dispute under Section 18 of the (Archaeological Survey of India) Act of 1958 being a protected monument,” the high court said.

Section 18 of the ASI Act says: “The public shall have a right of access to any protected monument.”

Under the 1991 Act, the religious character of a place of worship must be maintained as it existed on August 15, 1947, with the sole exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

Vishnu Shankar Jain, counsel for the Hindu petitioners, said they would petition the Supreme Court to vacate its January 8 order against the opening of the survey report. “We want it opened so that the case can proceed in the district court,” he said.

Sahar Naqvi, counsel for the mosque committee, was quoted as telling reporters that his team would challenge the high court order in the Supreme Court.

“Also, we don’t want the Supreme Court to vacate its order to keep the survey report in a sealed envelope because we believe it (the report) is motivated and incorrect and can vitiate the atmosphere,” he said.

The Sambhal court had appointed the advocate commissioner on November 19, 2024, the day the Hindu side had filed their petition.

The advocate commissioner’s team, accompanied by administrative and police officers of the district, surveyed the mosque the same day – without incident -- and again on November 24, when violence erupted outside the mosque.

Muslim residents of the area alleged the police had fired on the protesters, causing the deaths. The police said that two groups within the mob had clashed with firearms over the control of the mosque, resulting in the killings.

A judicial commission is inquiring into the violence.