Disputed land to be divided into 3 parts
LUCKNOW/ NEW DELHI/: TLUCKNOW/ NEW DELHI/: The special bench of Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya issue has created more controversy than finding a solution to the explosive issue.
The high court ruled by majority said that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts and distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for ‘Ram Lalla’.
In their separate judgements on the 60-year old title dispute on Babri Masjid –Ramjanambhoomi land, Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal said that the area under the central dome of the three-domed structure where Lord Ram’s idol exists belongs to Hindus.
The majority in the three-judge Lucknow bench also ruled that status quo should be maintained at the disputed place for three months, unless the order is modified or vacated earlier.
Justices Khan and Agarwal decreed that the 2.7 acre land comprising the disputed site should be divided into three parts. However, the third judge Justice D V Sharma ruled that that the disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. He also observed that the disputed building constructed by Mughal emperor Babur was built against the tenets of Islam and did not have the character of the mosque.
Justice Khan said all the three sets of parties – Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara – are declared joint title holders of the property and premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, the judge observed that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. He also said that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words ‘Ram Chabutra’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ in the map. Justice Khan said even though all the three parties are declared to have a share each, while allotting exact portions, some minor adjustments in the share is to be made.
Justice Agarwal made clear that the share of Muslim parties shall not be less than one-third of the total area of the premises and if necessary, it may be given some area of outer courtyard.
He also made it clear if some minor adjustments are to be made on sharing by different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India.
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat says the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya should not be seen as anybody’s victory or defeat. He said the judgment has paved the way for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. He said everybody, including Muslims should help build the temple.
The council for Babri Masjid Zafaryab Jilan said muslim would not agree with judgment and they would approach suptremen court after studying the entire verdict and with consultauion of muslim leadership
The Congress has said that everyone should have faith in the judiciary of the country and welcomed the judgment. Party General Secretary Janardhan Dwivedi said, if any person, party or organisation has any reservation about it, the way to Supreme Court is open.
There are moments in the life of an individual, society and the nation where once wisdom patience, tolerance and reasoning are judged.
BRIEF OF VERDICT
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
Meanwhile, reacting to the court judgement, President of Sri Ramjanma Bhoomi Nyas Samiti, Mahant Nritya Gopal Das said, it is neither a victory of Hindu nor Muslim but it is a victory of Ram Lalla. He said that he is not satisfied with the court’s decision of sharing the land.