Click to play videoNew Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed Allahabad High Court's verdict on Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute. The two-judge bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice RS Lodha was critical of the High Court verdict observing that it was "strange" as nobody had asked for partition of the land.
In a crucial verdict, the Supreme Court has stayed the Allahabad HC verdict in the Ayodhya title suit calling it strange. The apex court made the observation on the division of land into three parts even when none of the parties had asked for it.
Eight months after the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court ruled that the disputed Babri Ram janambhoomi land should be divided into three equal parts, the Supreme court stayed the judgment. Admitting the appeals filed by the petitioners - Sunni Wakf board, Nirmohi Akhara, Ram Lalla and two others – the court expressed surprise and said, "The High court has carved out a new relief which was never asked for how can a decree for partition be granted? Court has done something strange. This is something that needs to be corrected."
"This is strange and surprising. Nobody has prayed for partition of the disputed land. The partition of disputed land has opened a litany of litigation," said the court on the September 30, 2010 verdict of the High Court.
The court questioned how could a decree be given for partition and directed all the concerned parties to maintain status quo at the disputed site. The court also directed that no religious activity should be performed on 67 acre area adjacent to the disputed site.
"A new dimension was given by the High Court as the decree of partition was not sought by the parties. It was not prayed by anyone. It has to be stayed. It's a strange order. How can a decree of partition be passed when none of the parties had prayed for it? Court has done something on its own. It's strange. Such kind of decrees cannot be allowed to be in operation," the bench said while staying the High Court verdict.
"The partition was never acceptable to us and this was one of the grounds on which we had challenged the judgment," said Ravi Shankar Prasad.
The case will be heard from the beginning and all the parties to the dispute will submit their claims before the court.
In September last year, the Lucknow high court had resolved the 60-year-old contentious dispute by ordering a trifurcation of the disputed land.
The two judge majority verdict said that the disputed area is to be split into three equal parts.
- Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi were given to Nirmohi Akhara
- The central dome to be part of the area given to Hindus
- Bhandar to form part of the share of the Nirmohi Akhara
- Muslims were to not get less than 1/3 of the total area of the premises
While the minority view of the third judge in the case was that the entire disputed area belongs to Hindus and all parties to the dispute are permanently restrained from interfering with construction of temple at Ram janambhoomi at Ayodhya.
The Lucknow ruling was seen by many experts as a flawed legal compromise to the seemingly controversial issue and an effort to turn the page on its bloody history. But with the apex court's stay order it seems that the legal battle over the title suit of disputed area in Ayodhya is set to begin all over again.
Following the court's order, prayers at Ram Lala's make-shift temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya will go on as usual.
Expressing dissatisfaction over the High Court's verdict of dividing the 2.77 acre disputed site into three parts among Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara, different religious groups had approached the apex court.
The appeals were filed by Nirmohi Akhara, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, Jamait Ulama-I-Hind and Sunni Central Wakf Board. A petition has also been filed on behalf of Bhagwan Ram Virajman (seated Baby Ram).
The Wakf Board and Jamait Ulama-I-Hind had submitted that the High Court's verdict should be quashed as it was based on faith and not on evidence. It contended that the court has committed an error by holding that the building stood at the place of birth of Ram.
They submitted that claims of Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara over the controversial site are mutually exclusive and cannot be shared.
The Hindu Mahasabha, on the other hand, has sought only partial annulment of the majority verdict of the high court, which ruled for handing over one third of the disputed site to Muslims. It sought the apex court's endorsement of the September 30 minority verdict by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma who ruled for handing over of the entire land to Hindus.
A three-judge bench of the High Court's Lucknow bench had passed three separate judgements on September 30 with the majority verdict holding that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, where the idol of Lord Rama is situated, belongs to Hindus.
While justice SU Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal were of the view that the entire disputed land should be divided into three parts - one part each to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the parties representing 'Ram Lalla Virajman', Justice Dharam Veer Sharma had held that the entire disputed area belongs to Hindus.
There are five petitioners in the case. The first title suit was filed in 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad, second title suit was filed by Ramchadras Paramhans, the third by Birmohi Akhara, fourth by Sunni Wakf Board and the fifth by Bhagwan Ram Lalla himself.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
