SEARCH

News » National

Court awards two-thirds of Ayodhya site to Hindu parties, one-third to Waqf Board

Atiq Khan
Share  ·   Comment (8)   ·   print  ·  
Securitymen escort lawyers coming out of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court after the Ayodhya verdict, in Lucknow on Thursday.
AP Securitymen escort lawyers coming out of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court after the Ayodhya verdict, in Lucknow on Thursday.

Sixty years after the matter first went into litigation, a Special Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad has ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid stood for 500 years until it was demolished in 1992 shall be divided into three parts. A two-thirds portion is to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs and one-third will be given to the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board.

By a 2-1 majority verdict, plaintiffs representing Lord Ram, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Waqf Board were declared joint title-holders of the property. The Bench asserted that the portion under the central dome of the demolished three-dome structure where the idol of Ram Lalla had been kept in a makeshift temple was the birthplace of Lord Rama “as per faith and belief of the Hindus.”

The Bench of Justice S.U. Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D.V. Sharma dismissed the suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board for possession of the Babri Masjid because it was time-barred. It cited faith as the basis to declare the site the janmasthan of Lord Ram, but ordered a three-way partition on the basis of historical use of the site by Muslims and Hindus.

The Waqf Board said it would file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment . Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani told a media conference here that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board would decide when to file it.

The Bench clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have a one-third share each in the property, minor adjustments could be made — for which the adversely affected party would be compensated from the adjoining land acquired by the Central Government.

Dissenting judgment

Mr. Justice Sharma, however, did not agree with the one-third formula. According to him, the outer courtyard was in the exclusive possession of Hindus for worship, and in the inner courtyard (in the “disputed structure”) “they were also worshipping” and hence they had exclusive rights to the entire site.

In his dissenting judgment, Mr. Justice Sharma categorically stated that “the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.” He wrote: “Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.”

Mr. Justice Agarwal ruled that the “area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.”

Mr. Justice Khan did not rule categorically on this point. He merely noted that “for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the central dome of the mosque to be the exact birthplace of Lord Ram.” However, he ordered that the portion below the central dome “be allotted to Hindus in final decree.”

Mr. Justice Agarwal and Mr. Justice Sharma said the mosque was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple. Mr. Justice Khan disagreed, noting that “the mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of the mosque and some material thereof was used in the construction of the mosque.” However, both Mr. Justice Agarwal and Mr. Justice Khan agreed that the building that existed until 1992 was a mosque. But Mr. Justice Sharma disagreed: “The disputed building was constructed by Babar… against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.”

Talking to reporters, Mr. Jilani described the judgment as “partly disappointing and against the settled principles of law and evidence adduced by the Muslim side.” He hoped that peace and tranquillity would prevail in the country and the issue would not be taken to the streets.

Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas president Mahant Nitya Gopal Das also said the Hindu side was expected to approach the Supreme Court.

Comments:

Court should have made some social/NGO site out of this, neither giving it to Hindus for temple nor to Muslims for masjid. I fail to understand, how does it make any difference to any human being if certain building turns out to be a Temple or a Masjid. God lives in our hearts not in buildings, why do we need a temple or masjid to talk to God. Which form of God will be happy to find people killing fellow beings in the name of religion and which religion promotes killings. I strongly believe that to bring senses to our nation, it should have given this land to some NGO. At least it would have done better to our fellow beings in need!

from:  maneet kumar
Posted on: Oct 1, 2010 at 03:12 IST

Hindutva is not an ideological baggage. It is the universal ideal which has internalized in its body of thought and action the essence of all noble feelings and thinking of countless sages, seers and humble extraordinary people who loved humanity and all creation and walked on this great land of ours – India that is Bharatavarsha, from time immemorial. The so called educated, vociferous section of our society are trigger happy with their spontaneous pontification regarding inclusiveness whenever their Eurocentric supremacist notion of harmony and happiness is challenged by the home grown genius of India that is Bharat.
The richly generous genius of head and heart of India proclaimed –
“SARVE JANAH SUKHINO BHAVANTU”. This is the universal all inclusive IDEAL.
Let us proudly establish this ideal in our hearts and openly proclaim it again and again and work with all strength and humility to realize this ideal. Hindutva embodies this ideal in its entirety. Let there be no doubts about this in our both individual and collective consciousness.

from:  gurudev
Posted on: Oct 1, 2010 at 05:22 IST

PLease remove immediately the damaging misleading provacative headlines.
You will be the cause of riots with this type of heading

from:  V.KRISHNAN
Posted on: Oct 1, 2010 at 06:22 IST

Will one be wrong if the verdict is so interpreted as to hold that longstanding nature of religious beliefs can be admissable evidence in support of any claims based on such beliefs in a court of law?

from:  K.Vijayakumar
Posted on: Oct 1, 2010 at 06:33 IST

Hindutva is not an ideological baggage. It is the universal ideal which has internalized in its body of thought and action the essence of all noble feelings and thinking of countless sages, seers and humble extraordinary people who loved humanity and all creation and walked on this great land of ours – India that is Bharatavarsha, from time immemorial. The so called educated, vociferous section of our society are trigger happy with their spontaneous pontification regarding inclusiveness whenever their Eurocentric supremacist notion of harmony and happiness is challenged by the home grown genius of India that is Bharat. The richly generous genius of head and heart of India proclaimed – “SARVE JANAH SUKHINO BHAVANTU”. This is the universal all inclusive IDEAL. Let us proudly establish this ideal in our hearts and openly proclaim it again and again and work with all strength and humility to realize this ideal. Hindutva embodies this ideal in its entirety. Let there be no doubts about this in our both individual and collective consciousness.
Babar had no business to be in India in the first place. Thieves and pluderers do not deserve justice from a system they hated and wanted to destroy willingly with ideological sanction.

from:  gurudev
Posted on: Oct 1, 2010 at 07:35 IST

common people welcomed ayodya veridict

from:  Venkatesh.Ch
Posted on: Oct 2, 2010 at 08:19 IST

If waqf board could not submitt any solid evidence,he should not file the case in SC.It will only accelarate the despute &for which only "WAQF-BOARD" will be held responsible.Ayodya gram panchayat with only local impartial members should impliment the HC VERDICT.

from:  N.S.Songira
Posted on: Oct 2, 2010 at 11:09 IST

i m not statisfied to Lucknow high court judgment that for 2/3 for hindus.the is ram janm bhumi not muslim janm bhumi

from:  aditya kumar sinha
Posted on: Oct 2, 2010 at 13:55 IST
                                  

                                  
              

Make a comment

      Comments will be moderated

Sudoku - October 3, 2010

A mind game and a puzzle that you solve with reasoning and logic. Fill in the grid with digits in such a manner that every row, every column and every 3x3 box accommodates the digits 1 to 9,... »
Young World Quiz 2010

Resources

Gist of verdict delivered by three judges in Ayodhya title suit

Full text of the interview with Richard Falk, U.N. Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Israeli-Occupied Territories of Palestine

Audio recording of the lecture by Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian, in Chennai on September 18

Full text of the joint memorandum submitted by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik

Full text of the interview with Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian

More Resources »


Economy Watch (column)

Currency controversies

Resurrecting private banking?

Worrisome deficits

On regulating finance

Too much capital



Social


Please remember to logout of facebook after you complete this session.
Group Sites
The Hindu Business Line Sportstar Images Frontline