Courtesy of Sukla Sen of FOIL - Peace is Doable
>
>
>SEP, 2010, 08.50PM IST,AGENCIES
>Ayodhya verdict: Disputed land to be divided into 3 parts
>
>LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled by a majority verdict
>that the disputed land in be divided equally into three parts among Hindus
>and Muslims and that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Ram exists
>belongs to Hindus.
>
>In their separate judgements on the sensitive 60-year old title dispute on
>Ramjanambhoomi- structure, Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal said that
>the area under the central dome of the three-domed structure where Lord
>Ram's idol exists belongs to Hindus.
>
>The majority in the three-judge Lucknow bench also ruled that status quo
>should be maintained at the disputed place for three months.
>
>Agarwal decreed that the 2.7 acre land comprising the disputed site should
>be divided into three equal parts and be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi
>Akhara and the party representing 'Ram Lala Virajman' (Ram deity).
>
>However, the third judge Justice D V Sharma ruled that that the disputed
>site is the birth place of Lord Ram and that the disputed building
>constructed by Mughal emperor Babur was built against the tenets of Islam
>and did not have the character of the mosque.
>
>Justice Khan said "all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and
>Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/premises in
>dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by
>Shri Shiv Shankar Lal, Pleader/Commissioner appointed by court in Suit No. 1
>to the extent of 1/3rd share each for using and managing the same for
>worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed."
>
>However, the judge observed that it is further declared that the portion
>below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple
>will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
>
>He also said that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part
>which is shown by the words 'Ram Chabutra' and 'Sita Rasoi' in the said
>map.
>
>Justice Khan said even though all the three parties are declared to have
>one-third share each, "however, if while allotting exact portions, some
>minor adjustments in the share is to be made, then the same will be made and
>the adversely-affected party may be compensated by some portion of the
>adjoining land whichhas been acquired by the central government."
>
>In his gist of findings, Justice Khan observed that the disputed structure
>was constructed as mosque by or under the orders of Babar but it is not
>proved by direct evidence that the premises in dispute including constructed
>portion belonged to Babar or the person who built it.
>
>He also said that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque as it
>was built over the ruins of temple which was lying for a very long time.
>
>In his judgement, said "it is declared that the area covered by the central
>dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the
>deity of Bhagwan and place of birth of as per faith and belief of Hindus
>belong to plaintiffs (party on behalf of Lord Rama) and shall not be
>obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants."
>
>He also observed that the area within the inner courtyard excepting some
>portion belongs to members of both the communities, Hindus and Muslims,
>since it was being used by both since decades and centuries.
>
>"It is, however, made clear that the for the purpose of share of plaintiffs
>(parties on behalf of Lord Rama) under this direction", the area which is
>covered by central dome of the three-domed structure, shall also be
>included, he said.
>
>Justice Agarwal said the area covered by structures Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi
>and Bhandar in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi
>Akhara and they shall be entitled to possession thereof, in the absence of
>any person with better title.
>
>Justice Agarwal said the open area within the outer courtyard shall be
>shared by Nirmohi Akhara and the party for Lord Rama since it has generally
>been used by the Hindu people for worship at both places.
>
>"It is, however, made clear that the share of Muslim parties shall not be
>less than one-third of the total area of the premises and if necessary, it
>may be given some area of outer courtyard.
>
>"It is also made clear that while making metes and bounds, if some minor
>adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties,
>the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from
>the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India," the judge
>said.
>
>In his findings on issues, Justice Agarwal said the parties of the Muslim
>side have failed to prove that the property in dispute was constructed by
>Babar in 1528 AD.
>
>Justice Sharma, writing a separate judgement, observed that the disputed
>site is the birth place of Lord Rama. "Place of birth is a juristic person
>and is a deity. It is personified as a spirit of divine worshipped as 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," he said.
>
>On the disputed structure, said it "was constructed by Babar, the year is
>not certain but it was against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the
>character of a mosque."
>
>Differing with the other two judges, he also ruled that the disputed
>structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after demolition
>of the same. "The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the
>structure was a massive Hindu religious structure," he said.
>
>He said the idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure
>in the intervening night of December 22 and 23, 1949.
>
>With regard to the status of the disputed site -- inner and outer courtyard,
>Justice Sharma said "it is established that the property in suit is the site
>of Janambhoomi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to
>worship 'charan', 'Sita Rasoi', other idols and other object of worship
>existed upon the property in suit."
>
>He said "it is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place
>in dispute as Janamsthan, i.e., a birth place as deity and visiting it as a
>sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial."
>
>The judge said after the construction of the disputed structure, "it is
>proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on
>22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive
>possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner
>courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping.
>
>"It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a
>mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam."
>
>II.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100917/edit.htm#4
>
>*Ayodhya verdict
>All parties must act to face the situation
>by Rajindar Sachar*
>
>*T*HE government, the Opposition and the public in general are rightly in
>panic awaiting the verdict on Babri Masjid by the Allahabad High Court – a
>situation brought about by the faltering non-secular stand by the
>governments concerned. The High Court is to give its verdict on the
>following points: (1) Was the place under Babri Majid the birthplace of Lord
>Ram? (2) Was there a temple on the land on which Babri Masjid was built?
>
>Now it is obvious to the meanest intelligence that it is impossible to prove
>that the birthplace of Lord Ram was under the masjid — it may be a matter of
>faith, genuine or contrived or otherwise, but that is no proof, nor can it
>ever be put forward as a legal ground to take away the land from the mosque.
>
>If the finding is that the masjid was not built on a temple, then the
>Muslims get the land back and will be free to use it in any way, including
>the building of the mosque.
>
>In the alternative it may be held that there was a temple on the land of
>Babri Masjid. But even with this finding the suit by the VHP/RSS has to be
>dismissed. Admittedly, Babri Masjid has been in existence for over 400 years
>till it was demolished by goons of the VHP/RSS in 1992. Legally speaking,
>the Sangh Parivar would have no right even if a temple had been demolished
>to build Babri Masjid.
>
>I say this in view of the precedent of the case of Masjid Shahid Ganj in
>Lahore decided by the Privy Council in 1940. In that case there was
>admittedly a mosque existing since 1722 AD. But by 1762, the building came
>under Sikh rule and was used as a gurdwara. It was only in 1935 that a suit
>was filed claiming the building was a mosque and should be returned to the
>Muslims.
>
>The Privy Council, while observing that "their Lordship have every sympathy
>with a religious sentiment which would ascribe sanctity and inviolability to
>a place of worship, they cannot under the Limitation Act accept the
>contentions that such a building cannot be possessed adversely", went on to
>hold "The property now in question having been possessed by Sikhs adversely
>to the waqf and to all interests there under for more than 12 years, the
>right of the mutawali(caretaker) to possession for the purposes of the waqf
>came to an end under the Limitation Act". On the same parity of reasoning
>even if a temple existed prior to the building of the masjid 400 years ago,
>the suit by the VHP etc has to fail.
>
>There is another reason why in such a situation, the suit will fail because
>in common law, even a rightful heir, if he kills his ancestor, forfeits his
>right of inheritance. In the masjid case too there was a "murder most foul"
>and hence the murderer cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own
>dastardly deeds, whatever the legal position maybe.
>
>It is true that sometimes some Muslim groups in a spirit of
>large-heartedness and as a measure of mutual accommodation, suggest that if
>it was found that the masjid was built on the site of a temple, they would
>not like to now build a mosque on the said site because the Koran forbids
>the Muslims to build a mosque by demolishing any other religious place. But
>even then if the Muslims choose not to build a masjid on this site, the
>ownership and use of the land remains with them. The Hindus cannot under any
>circumstances lay a claim to this site which was under Babri Masjid.
>
>Some well-intentioned persons come out with an apparently neutral suggestion
>of building a multi-religious complex on the site. To me this would be a
>surrender to the rabid Hindu communal sentiment. Whatever explanation you
>may give, a Muslim then would feel a less equal citizen if even after he has
>won, he is asked to share this site with the goons who destroyed the holy
>mosque. This would be a defeat of secularism and against our Constitution,
>which mandates that all citizens — Hindus, Muslims and others — have equal
>rights and are equal before law.
>
>A multi-religious complex or a multi-culture centre or a hospital can
>obviously be built by the joint free will efforts of both Hindus and
>Muslims. But such a complex, if it is to be built necessarily, must be on
>the land away and outside the masjid complex, and that too only if the
>Muslims give their consent — obviously as the vacant land belongs to the
>Muslims. But under all circumstances, the site under Babri Masjid must
>remain in the exclusive possession of the Muslims, who should be free to use
>it in any way the community decides.
>
>I feel that the government should start doing an exercise of consultation
>and preparation on these lines – to await helplessly trying to anticipate
>what the verdict would be is like a pigeon who on seeing a cat closes its
>eyes with the delusion that the cat would go away — the result is obvious.
>
>Equally, I feel that leaders of all communities, political parties and
>social groups should start planning to meet the situation because the matter
>requires the involvement of people at the grassroots level and the matter
>does not brook any delay.
>
>The legal position is clear. It is only the weakness of political will that
>is responsible for the Ayodhya imbroglio to continue as one of the bitterest
>disputes within the country. By keeping the Ayodhya issue alive, the country
>has been kept away from addressing its most urgent task — how to meet the
>challenge of the growing pauperisation of the masses. And that includes both
>Hindus and Muslims.
>
>The writer is a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi
>
>--
>Peace Is Doable
>_______________________________________________
>Foil-l mailing list
>Foil-l@insaf.net
>http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/foil-l_insaf.net
__._,_.___
