Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya case

By The Assam Tribune

NEW DELHI, May 9 � Dubbing as �strange� the Allahabad High Court�s verdict of three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court today stayed its operation saying none of the parties had demanded partition of the land, reports PTI.

�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,� a Bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R M Lodha observed while staying the September 30 order of the High Court.

It expressed surprise over how the High Court could pass such an order when it was not prayed by anyone.

�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�s verdict.

�It is a difficult situation now. The position is that it (the High Court verdict) has created litany of litigation,� the bench observed.

While ordering status quo at the site, which means that prayers at Ram Lala�s make-shift temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya would be going on as usual, the Court restrained any kind of religious activity on the adjacent 67 acre land, which had been taken over by the Centre.

All the parties to the suit expressed satisfaction over the Supreme Court order.

Counsel for various parties, including Lord Rama Lalla Virajman, Hindu Maha Sabha and Sunni Waqf Board, expressed satisfaction over the apex court�s interim order saying that none of the parties had sought division of the 2.77 acre land.

Sunni Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani said, �We are satisfied with today�s order of the Supreme Court...This will help in maintaining peaceful position in the country.�

The High Court had directed that the controversial land of 2.77 acres at Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid be divided equally among Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara, the parties to the suit.

At the start of the proceedings, the bench queried whether any of the parties was in favour of the High Court�s verdict but none of them supported the judgement. �At least there is unanimity on it,� the bench remarked.

Although the appeals filed by various Hindu and Muslim religious organisations pertained to only 2.77 acre of disputed land, the apex court bench, however, ordered status quo on the 67 acre of land adjacent to the disputed site.

After the demolition of the masjid on December 6, 1992, the demonstrators created a makeshift temple. On January 7, 1993, the Congress government enacted the Ayodhya Act 1993 which preserved the status quo of the destroyed mosque and limited prayer on the disputed site.

The bench was hearing a batch of appeals filed by Nirmohi Akhara, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, Jamait Ulama-I-Hind and Sunni Central Wakf Board, besides the one filed on behalf of Bhagwan Ram Virajman.

The Wakf Board and Jamait Ulama-I-Hind have submitted that the High Court�s verdict should be quashed as it was based on faith and not on evidence. They have contended that the court has committed an error by holding that the demolished Babri mosque stood at Lord Ram�s birth place.

They have contended that claims of Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara over the disputed site were mutually exclusive and could not be shared.

Next Story
Similar Posts
SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya case

NEW DELHI, May 9 � Dubbing as �strange� the Allahabad High Court�s verdict of three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court today stayed its operation saying none of the parties had demanded partition of the land, reports PTI.

�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,� a Bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R M Lodha observed while staying the September 30 order of the High Court.

It expressed surprise over how the High Court could pass such an order when it was not prayed by anyone.

�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�s verdict.

�It is a difficult situation now. The position is that it (the High Court verdict) has created litany of litigation,� the bench observed.

While ordering status quo at the site, which means that prayers at Ram Lala�s make-shift temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya would be going on as usual, the Court restrained any kind of religious activity on the adjacent 67 acre land, which had been taken over by the Centre.

All the parties to the suit expressed satisfaction over the Supreme Court order.

Counsel for various parties, including Lord Rama Lalla Virajman, Hindu Maha Sabha and Sunni Waqf Board, expressed satisfaction over the apex court�s interim order saying that none of the parties had sought division of the 2.77 acre land.

Sunni Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani said, �We are satisfied with today�s order of the Supreme Court...This will help in maintaining peaceful position in the country.�

The High Court had directed that the controversial land of 2.77 acres at Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid be divided equally among Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara, the parties to the suit.

At the start of the proceedings, the bench queried whether any of the parties was in favour of the High Court�s verdict but none of them supported the judgement. �At least there is unanimity on it,� the bench remarked.

Although the appeals filed by various Hindu and Muslim religious organisations pertained to only 2.77 acre of disputed land, the apex court bench, however, ordered status quo on the 67 acre of land adjacent to the disputed site.

After the demolition of the masjid on December 6, 1992, the demonstrators created a makeshift temple. On January 7, 1993, the Congress government enacted the Ayodhya Act 1993 which preserved the status quo of the destroyed mosque and limited prayer on the disputed site.

The bench was hearing a batch of appeals filed by Nirmohi Akhara, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, Jamait Ulama-I-Hind and Sunni Central Wakf Board, besides the one filed on behalf of Bhagwan Ram Virajman.

The Wakf Board and Jamait Ulama-I-Hind have submitted that the High Court�s verdict should be quashed as it was based on faith and not on evidence. They have contended that the court has committed an error by holding that the demolished Babri mosque stood at Lord Ram�s birth place.

They have contended that claims of Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara over the disputed site were mutually exclusive and could not be shared.