, “how can the High Court partition the land when no party to the suit had asked for a partition?” The judges also indicated that the matter may be referred to a constitution bench.
The apex court made it clear that worship at the makeshift temple at Ayodhya will continue as was being done till January 7, 1993.
“It is a rare judgement whose operation has to be stayed” and “entirely new dimension was given by the High Court in its verdict”, the court said.
“It was a strange and surprising order that was not prayed for by any of the parties and cannot be allowed to remain,” it said.
“We have read the judgment twice”, the court said adding that “No where there was a prayer by any party seeking the division of the disputed site.” The court said that the case has opened a “litany of litigation”.
Justice Lodha said , “Partition (verdict). This is something surprising. No body prayed for partition”. “(High) Court has done something strange by its order”, Justice Alam pointed out.
However, no religious activity will be permitted on 67 acres of land acquired by the Centre in 1993 following demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 by kar sevaks. Apex court also termed the High Court verdict on Ayodhya as “strange”.
Holding the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, the majority on the Lucknow 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 judgment on September 30 last 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.