0
0
PARTIES
Petitioners: M. Siddiq (Deceased); Maulana Asshad Rashidi; Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.
Lawyers: Rajeev Dhavan; Raju Ramachandran.
Respondents: Mahant Suresh Das; Nirmohi Akhara; Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman; Uttar Pradesh; District Collector (Faizabad); City Magistrate (Faizabad); Superintendent of Police (Faizabad); All India Hindu Mahasabha; Arya Maha Praseshik Sabha; All India Sanatan Dharam Sabha.
Lawyers: Tushar Mehta; Subramaniam Swamy; CS Vaidyanathan; Ranjit Kumar; K Parasaran; Harish Salve.
Case-Number: CA 10866-10867/2010
Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, 4768-4771, 2636, 821, 4739, 4905-4908, 2215, 4740, 2894, 6965, 4192, 5498, 7226 and 8096/2011
Decided On: 09.11.2019
Appellants: M. Siddiq (D) thr. L.Rs. v/s. Respondent: Mahant Suresh Das and Ors.
———————————————————–
Introduction:-
The Ayodhya dispute which is also known as ‘Ram Janmabhoomi Vivad’ was one of the most famous disputes in the socio-religious history of India. The dispute was related to the plot of land in the district Ayodhya, U.P, which is regarded as the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram.
Hindus believe that in the sixteenth century the Babur demolished the temple situated at the birthplace of Ram and built a Mosque which is known as Babri Masjid.
The mosque was demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992 following a long campaign of religious agitation. over the years the matter has been brought up by both groups in various courts of the country.
The dispute came to end by the verdict of the Supreme Court which unanimously ruled that the disputed land be given to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas for construction of the Temple and the Muslim side be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent site in Ayodhya to build a mosque. Recently Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi laid the Foundation stone for the construction of the Ram temple.
The Fact of the case:-
The first recorded legal history of the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was in 1885 when Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit before the court. The relief that sought was permission to build a temple Ram Chabutra situated outside the courtyard. He could not succeed because he had failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra.
In 1934, there was another conflagration between the two communities. The mosque was damaged during the incident but it was subsequently repaired at the cost of the colonial government. In 1949 a dispute arises when the Idol of Lord Ram was placed in the mosque. Due to a law-and-order problem the magistrate lockdown the area for both communities.
The public was only allowed Darshan from beyond the grill brick wall. in 1950 and 1959 a suit was instituted before a civil judge at Faizabad claiming the absolute right to manage worship places.
In 1961 Muslim residents and the Sunni Waqf Board filed a suit seeking a declaration that the entire disputed site of the Babri Masjid was a public Mosque and for the delivery of possession upon removal of the idols. In 1986 a suit was instituted for allowing Darshan within the inner courtyard.
The court allowed to provide access to devotees for Darshan inside the structure. In 1989 another suit was filed by the deity Lord Ram through a next friend for a declaration of title to the disputed site and to restrain the defendants from interfering with or raising any objection to the construction of the temple.
The suits were transferred to the high court of judicature. Allahabad where a three judges’ bench was constituted for the trial of the suites. An interim order was passed by High Court to maintain the status quo with respect to the property in dispute.
During the pendency of the proceeding state of U.P. acquired 2.77 acres comprising disputed land. A substantial change took place on 6 December 1992 when a large crowd destroyed the mosque, the boundary wall, and the Ram Chabutra. A makeshift Structure Temple was constructed at the please under the central dome.
The idol of Ram Lalla was placed there. After analyzing the various oral, documentary, and other scientific evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India the full bench of the High Court held at all the three sets of parties- Muslims, Hindus, and Nirmohi Akhara as joint holders of the disputed premises and allotted a one-third share to each of them in a preliminary decree.
Other suits were dismissed as Being barred by limitation. The aggrieved parties preferred to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court 2011 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the judgment. The parties were directed to maintain the status quo with respect to the disputed premises.
The court 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017 issued directions for summoning the digital records of the evidence and pleadings from the Allahabad High Court and for Furnishing translated copies to the parties, after disposing of the Ismail Farooqui case the court has constituted five judges’ bench to hear the appeals in the meantime.
Court constituted a panel of a mediator to mediate the dispute within the stipulated period of time. The panel could not settle the dispute amicably. Ultimately the supreme court held a final hearing on the case from 6 August 2019 to 16 October 2019.
Judgment:-
The five judges’ bench of the supreme court unanimously pronounced its verdict on 9 November 2019. The court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to be constituted by the government of India to build the Ram Mandir.
It also ordered the government to allocate five acres of land to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque at a suitable place within Ayodhya. The court held that Muslim parties failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land.
At the same time, Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama.
The court rejected the claim made by the Shia Waqf board against the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the ownership of the Babri Masjid. On 12 December 2019, the supreme court dismissed all the 18 petitions setting a review of the verdict.
