Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi - Babri Masjid land dispute case
November 11 , 2019 243 days 337 0
The final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute was declared by the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019.
The verdict was given by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
It includes SA Bobde, Ashok Bhushan, DY Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer.
It was a unanimous judgement.
The Supreme Court was hearing the fourteen appeals challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict.
The Allahabad High Court had ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla.
The Supreme court had on March 8 constituted a three-member committee headed by retired apex court judge FMI Kalifulla and also comprising Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior Madras High Court advocate Sriram Panchu to mediate a settlement to the Ayodhya land dispute.
SC gave the disputed land to Ram Lalla for Ram Janmbhoomi Nyas.
The SC had recognized Lord Ram -- the deity Ram Lalla as a legitimate legal personality.
However, the ‘janmabhoomi’ cannot be a juristic entity.
The Court ordered the Government of India to create a trust to build a temple and a Board of Trustees within three months.
The disputed land will be owned by the Government of India and subsequently transferred to the Trust after its formation.
It also ordered to the government to give alternate 5-acre land to Sunni Waqf Board to build the mosque.
The Court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court's division of the disputed land was incorrect.
The Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of law.
The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a non-Islamic structure.
The Court said that Muslims parties, including the UP Sunni Waqf Board, failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land.
It said that the Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had worshipped continuously inside the mosque believing it to the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram.
The Court cited that iron railings setup in 1856-57 separated the inner courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard, and that Hindus were in exclusive possession of the outer courtyard.
It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner courtyard of the mosque.
The court ruled that Nirmohi Akhara should be given appropriate representation in the Board of Trustees that will be created by the Government of India.
The Court rejected the claim made by Shia Waqf Board against the Sunni Waqf Board for the ownership of the Babri Masjid.
K. Parasaran was instrumental in getting the judgement in favour of Ram Lalla Virajman.
He was Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu during President's rule in 1976 and then, Attorney General of India under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi between 1983 and 1989.