SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya title suit, termed it "strange"

New Delhi, May 9 (PTI) Dubbing as "strange" the
Allahabad High Court's verdict of three-way division of the
disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, the
Indian apex court on Monday stayed its operation saying none
of the parties had demanded partition of the land.
"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 in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh
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.
"It was nobody's case in the high court that the
Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara were in joint possession of
the disputed premises. The claims of the three sets of
plaintiffs were mutually exclusive in the sense each set of
the plaintiffs claimed the entire property as its own and no
one sought a decree for partition of the property," the
appeals have said.
The Hindu Mahasabha, on the other hand, has sought
only partial annulment of the majority verdict of the high
court, which ruled handing over one third of the disputed
site to Muslims.
It has sought the apex court's endorsement of the
September 30 minority verdict by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
who favoured handing over of the entire land to the Hindus.
"The judgement dated September 30, 2010 by Justice S U
Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal should be set aside to the
extent that one third of the property in dispute has been
declared in favour of Muslims and to allot share to them in
the decree," the Hindu Mahasabha has said in its petition.
It has appealed to the apex court "to maintain the
judgement passed by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma" as the
effective verdict.
A three-judge bench of the high court's Lucknow bench
had passed three separate judgements on September 30 with the
majority verdict holding that the area covered by the central
dome of the three-domed structure, where the idol of Lord Rama
is situated, belongs to Hindus.
While justices Khan and Agarwal were of the view that
the entire disputed land should be divided into three parts -
one part each to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the
parties representing 'Ram Lalla Virajman', Justice Sharma had
held that the entire disputed area belongs to Hindus.
Earlier, Delhi MLA Shoaib Iqbal had also filed the
appeal in the Supreme Court which refused to entertain it,
saying the petition "is misconceived. Hence dismissed."