The Allahabad High Court on Monday rejected a petition filed by the Shahi Jama Masjid management committee against a trial court order from November that directed the appointment of an advocate commissioner to survey the premises of the mosque in Sambhal, Live Law reported.

The structure has been at the centre of a controversy since November 26, when violence broke out in Sambhal after Muslim groups objected to the court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Five persons were killed in the clashes.

The trial court had ordered the survey on November 19 on a suit filed by Hindu activists claiming that the mosque had been built in 1526 by Mughal ruler Babur on the site of a “centuries-old Shri Hari Har Temple dedicated to Lord Kalki”.

The proceedings in the case were deferred in effect since November 29, when the Supreme Court directed the trial court to wait until the mosque committee’s petition was listed before the Allahabad High Court.

On December 12, the Supreme Court barred trial courts from passing orders, including survey directions, in pending lawsuits concerning the religious character of places of worship.

It also said that no new suits can be registered in any court across the country until further orders while it hears a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Places of Worship Special Provisions Act.

The Act does not allow any changes to the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

These directions also extend to the case in Sambhal and thus the advocate commissioner’s survey report of the disputed mosque has been submitted to the local court and is kept in a sealed cover.

In in the interim, the Shahi Jama Masjid management committee of the mosque filed a petition in the High Court against the conduct of any survey at the mosque, Bar and Bench reported.

The Archaeological Survey of India had also filed its responses in the case.

It said that the mosque had been designated as a “Centrally Protected Monument” by the government and could not be characterised as a “place of public worship” because there were no supporting records for such a claim.

The provisions of the 1958 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act became applicable to such sites after Independence, the ASI said, adding that official records did not identify the mosque as a religious place, Bar and Bench reported.

Under the Act, the ASI and the Union government had the authority to declare and preserve protected monuments, rendering any unauthorised ownership claims, such as those by the Shahi Jama Masjid management committee, legally irrelevant, the government agency added.

The High Court had reserved its verdict in the matter on May 3, Bar and Bench reported.