New Judgement on Ayodhya Verdict

7-1-1993 की  यथास्थिति बनी रहे 

      The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute last September in which a three-judge Lucknow Bench had ruled by a majority that the disputed land at Ayodhya would be jointly held by Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara.



The Supreme Court criticised High Court verdict on the partition of disputed land at Ayodhya. The partition of disputed land has "opened a litany of litigation", SC said.



Apex court also termed the High Court verdict on Ayodhya as "strange".



The Supreme Court directed no religious activity be performed on 67-acre area adjacent to the disputed site.

Holding the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, the majority on the Kucknow Bench had said each party – the Hindu Mahasabha, the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara -- would be entitled to one-third share of the disputed land, with Lord Ram's idol continuing to stay at the place where he was placed.



In their separate judgements on the sensitive 60-year old title dispute on Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure, Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal said the area under the central dome of the three-domed structure where Lord Ram's idol exists belongs to Hindus.

Justices Khan and Agarwal decreed that the 2.7 acre land comprising the disputed site should be divided into three equal parts and be given to the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party representing 'Ram Lala Virajman' (Ram deity).



The court dismissed the title suits of the Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. It also ordered that all parties would maintain status quo for three months.

While Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal ruled that the disputed property should be equally divided among the three parties, Justice D V Sharma, who was in the minority, stated categorically that the land belonged to the Hindus. He also said the disputed structure constructed by Mughal emperor Babur was built against the tenets of Islam and, hence, was not a mosque.



The contentious issue is certain to reach the Supreme Court, with the Sunni Wakf Board announcing that it would appeal the HC judgment.



While Justice D V Sharma said the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a Hindu religious structure, Justice S U Khan said the mosque had been built by, or on the orders, of Babar but not by demolishing a temple. The masjid, he said was built on the ruins of a temple. He also said some material of the temple, which was in ruins, was used in construction of the mosque.

As per the judgement, the area under the central dome of the disputed structure, where Ram's idols were installed in 1949 and again in 1992, would belong to the Hindus, and the area where the sita rasoi and ram chabootara are located would belong to the Nirmohi Akhara.

Justice Khan said even though all three parties are declared to have one-third share each, "however, if while allotting exact portions, some minor adjustments in the share is to be made, then the same will be made and the adversely-affected party may be compensated by some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government."

He also said no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque as it was built over the ruins of temple which was lying for a very long time.



In his judgement, Justice Agarwal said: "It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus belong to plaintiffs (party on behalf of Lord Rama) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants."

The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the main litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, moved the Supreme Court against the verdict of the Allahabad High Court by November 10.