AGENCIES / NEW DELHI
The Supreme Court commenced hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya today after efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation failed.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on August 2 taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla.
The bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, noted that the mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months have not resulted in any final settlement.
The Court also rejected the plea for the recording of Ayodhya case proceedings as sought by former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya.
The Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties to the dispute informed the court that no Muslims were allowed to enter the disputed structure since 1934. Senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for the Nirmohi Akhara, said that they were seeking management and possession of the area.
Jain told the apex court that the Nirmohi Akhara’s suit was basically for belongings, possession and management rights. Jain also told the court that the Nirmohi Akhara was in possession of the inner courtyard and the Ram Janmasthan for hundreds of years and it was never a part of the dispute in any case.
The ongoing hearing also witnessed a heated exchange of words between the bench and senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was appearing for a Muslim party.
While the bench was asking the counsel for the Nirmohi Akhara to confine his arguments to the civil dispute and skip reading some written statements, Dhavan interfered and said perhaps there would not be any curtailment of arguments.
The CJI said the hearing or the arguments would not be curtailed in any manner and there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind about it.
During the hearing, the counsel representing the Nirmohi Akhara claimed right over the disputed 2.77-acre Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land and said they had been possessing, managing and worshipping Ram Lalla at the site since time immemorial.
The bench told the Nirmohi Akhara’s counsel that it had already been given one-third of the disputed area in the preliminary decree by the high court in 2010.