[Breaking] [Ayodhya] : SC Allows Temple Construction In Disputed Land; Alternate Plot Of 5 Acres For Mosque [Read Judgment]

In an unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court on Saturday held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir.At the same time, the Court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of mosque. This direction was passed invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the destruction of Babri mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949 was an act of "desecration", observed the Court.The Central Government has been directed to formulate a scheme for construction of temple within three months. A Board of Trustees must be set up for temple construction. The Centre should do it based on its powers underunder Sections 6 and 7 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993. Appropriate representation must be given for Nirmohi Akhara in the trust. Possession of the inner and outer courtyards shall be handed over to the Board of Trustees of the Trust or to the body so constituted. The right of the plaintiff in Suit 1 (legal representatives of original plaintiff G S Visharad) to worship at the disputed property is affirmed by the Court subject to any restrictions imposed by the relevant authorities with respect to the maintenance of peace and order and the performance of orderly worship. The alternate site for mosque construction should be allotted either by: (a) The Central Government out of the land acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993; or (b) The State Government at a suitable prominent place in Ayodhya. The Central Government and the State Government should act in consultation with each other to effectuate this allotment within the period stipulated.Thus the Court decreed the suit filed on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla, and partly decreed the suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board.The verdict was read out by CJI Gogoi, over half an hour.The other key points from verdict. The Court held that the suit by Nirmohi Akhara was time barred.The findings of ASI report cannot be brushed aside as conjectureASI reports show that the Babri Masjid was not built on a vacant land. The underlying structure was not of Islamic origin.The ASI report was not conclusive as to whether the underlying structure was a Hindu temple.The mere existence of structure beneath the mosque cannot lead to a title for Hindus now, even if that structure is found to be of Hindu origin.The faith of Hindus that the place is birth place of Lord Ram is undisputed.The Ram Janmabhoomi has no juristic personality. But Ram Lalla, the deity has juristic personality.The Suit by Sunni Waqf Board is maintainable and not barred by limitation.The Sunni Waqf Board has not been able to prove adverse possession. There is evidence to show that the Hindus had been visiting the premises prior to 1857.There is clear evidence to show that Hindus worshiped in the outer courtyard of the disputed site. As regards the inner court yard, there is no evidence in the suit by Sunni Board to show exclusive possession prior to 1857.Allahabad HC was wrong in splitting the properties into three, giving each party one-third share. It was not a partition suit, observed the SC.Breaking : SC holds Ramjanmabhoomi to be not a juristic person;But the deity Ram Lalla is a juristic person#AYODHYAVERDICT— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 9, 2019Ayodhya Hearing : Key Arguments Made By Parties In SC Some key qoutes from the judgment :"The underlying structure which provided the foundations of the mosque together with its architectural features and recoveries are suggestive of a Hindu religious origin comparable to temple excavations in the region and pertaining to the era.""While the ASI report has found the existence of ruins of a preexisting structure, the report does not provide: (a) The reason for the destruction of the pre-existing structure; and (b) Whether the earlier structure was demolished for the purpose of the construction of the mosque.""Since the ASI report dates the underlying structure to the twelfth century, there is a time gap of about four centuries between the date of the underlying structure and the construction of the mosque. No evidence is available to explain what transpired in the course of the intervening period of nearly four centuries""No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human history between the twelfth and sixteen centuries. No evidence is available in a case of this antiquity on (i) the cause of destruction of the underlying structure; and (ii) whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque.""The Hindus have been in exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard where they have continued worship""The inner courtyard has been a contested site with conflicting claims of the Hindus and Muslims""The submission that the mosque did not accord with Islamic tenets stands rejected....

[Breaking] [Ayodhya] : SC Allows Temple Construction In Disputed Land; Alternate Plot Of 5 Acres For Mosque [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[Breaking] [Ayodhya] : SC Allows Temple Construction In Disputed Land; Alternate Plot Of 5 Acres For Mosque [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers