Ayodhya Verdict Updates: Entire Disputed 2.77-Acre Land Goes to Hindus for Ram Mandir, Muslims to Get 5 Acres of Alternate Land
Ayodhya Verdict Live Updates: Bringing down curtains on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, one of the longest running title disputes in India, the Supreme Court has given the entire disputed 2.77-acre land to the Hindu parties with a trust to be formed by the Centre to monitor the construction of a Ram Temple. The Sunni Waqf Board will be given 5 acres of alternate land, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in the unanimous verdict. The Nirmohi Akhara also suffered a setback with the court saying it is not a ‘shebait’ or devotee of the deity Ram Lalla. The CJI Ranjan Gogoi-led bench of Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, said the Akhara’s suit was barred by limitation.
The Ayodhya title suit verdict comes nine years after the 2:1 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of land between the three parties — Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. The Lucknow Bench of the High Court, on September 30, 2010, held that Hindus and Muslims as joint title holders of the disputed land.
Meanwhile, prohibitory orders have been issued across Delhi to maintain public order.
Crux of the Ayodhya Verdict: The disputed land in Ayodhya goes to the Hindus in its entirety for the construction of Ram Mandir. The Sunni Waqf Board will get five acres of alternate land, which will be accorded either by the state or the Centre.
Centre will hand over the disputed site to the Board of trustees and a suitable alternative plot of land measuring five acres at Ayodhya will be given to Sunni Waqf Board. In the scheme by Board of trustees, appropriate representation be given to Nirmohi Akhara.
The CJI is reading out all pointers:
– A suitable plot of land measuring 5 acre shall be given to Sunni Waqf Board either by the state or by the Centre
– Under Article 142, SC directs in the scheme to be framed, Nirmohi Akhara to also get representation
– Land to remain vested in statutory receiver till trust is formed
– Trust to be formed in three months
– Management of construction of the temple to be monitored by the trust
The CJI is reading out all pointers:
– Hindus to get land subject to conditions
– Central government to frame a scheme
– A trust will be formed
– Inner courtyard will be handed over to the trust
– A suitable plot of land measuring 5 acre shall be given to Sunni Waqf Board
– Centre must set a trust with board of trustees within 3 months
Muslim parties to get alternate land, rules CJI-Led Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. “Since the Babri mosque was brought down, Wrong committed must be limited,” it says.
The CJI-led Constitution bench of the Supreme Court says that all forms of beliefs equal for Constitution. “Constitution speaks through judges. Worship of inner courtyard continued by Hindus even when in possession,” the top court says.
For 325 years, from the construction of the mosque till 1857, Muslims have given no evidence of offering prayers at the disputed structure in exclusion of Hindus, it says. Destruction of the mosque in 1992 was in breach of SC order, says CJI-led bench.
The Muslims Sunni Waqf Board couldn’t establish adverse possession on the disputed site. The disputed site is one composite whole, says Supreme Court. “No namaz after 1949,” the SC adds.
Citing evidence that Hindus continued praying there, at Ram Chabutara, garbh girja, Supreme Court rules Muslims haven’t been able to establish possessory right on the disputed property.
But documents show that prior to 1857, Hindus were not barred from worshipping in the inner courtyard. The railings segregating the outer and inner courtyard was made in 1857. But Hindus always believed that the birthplace of Ram was in the inner courtyard of the mosque, says SC
The riots of 1934 and disturbances in 1949 show possession of inner courtyard was a matter of contestation. It can’t be said Muslims have been able to establish their possessory title, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court says.
