Tuesday, Jun 18, 2024 | Last Update : 08:40 AM IST

  India   All India  10 Dec 2019  Ayodhya dispute: Plea by Hindu Mahasabha to relook 5 acres for Muslims

Ayodhya dispute: Plea by Hindu Mahasabha to relook 5 acres for Muslims

THE ASIAN AGE. | PARMOD KUMAR
Published : Dec 10, 2019, 5:01 am IST
Updated : Dec 10, 2019, 5:01 am IST

It also referred to that part of the judgment that says “there was no dispute” that the mosque was raised in 1528 AD by or at the behest of Babar.

A five-member Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice Ran-an Gogoi (since retired) had given the ownership of the entire Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site to the Ram Lalla idol for the construction of a Ram temple. (Photo: AP)
 A five-member Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice Ran-an Gogoi (since retired) had given the ownership of the entire Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site to the Ram Lalla idol for the construction of a Ram temple. (Photo: AP)

New Delhi: The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha on Monday filed a petition seeking partial reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict to the extent of its direction to the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government to give five areas of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya to Muslims for the construction of a mosque.

The plea for reconsideration of the Ayodhya verdict also seeks reconsideration of the November 9 verdict that says “damage was caused to the mosque in 1934, the mosque was desecrated in 1949 and the mosque was demolished on 6.12.1992”.

A five-member Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi (since retired) had given the ownership of the entire Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site to the Ram Lalla idol for the construction of a Ram temple.

However, the court, taking recourse to its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, had also  directed the Centre and UP government to allot five acres of land to Muslim parties at a prominent place in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque.

Interestingly, the grant of five acres for construction of a mosque had also been objected to by the Muslim partes in all seven petitions — one backed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and six by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board — seeking reconsideration of the Novembrer 9 verdict.

Seeking the deletion of the part of the November 9 order describing the disputed structure as a “mosque”, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha said the court has held Hindus have been worshipping at the birthplace of Lord Ram under the three-domed structure from ancient times. However, the plea for reconsideration of the verdict says “without any evidence or material on record (the court) has termed the structure as a mosque simply on the basis that in the plaint Muslims have alleged that a mosque has been constructed by and under the orders of Babar in 1528 by Mir Baqui, a commander of Babar’s army”. It also referred to that part of the judgment that says “there was no dispute” that the mosque was raised in 1528 AD by or at the behest of Babar.

“The finding by the court terming the disputed structure as a mosque is apparently not correct and against the evidence and material on record and such a mistake may be corrected in exercise of the power of review’, says the petition by the Hindu Mahasabha.

“In view of the facts and the law concerning the case it would be desirable that the court may delete the word Babri Mosque/ Babri Masjid/mosque/masjid ... wherever it occurs in the judgment and the same may be substituted by the word ‘disputed structure’,” says the plea for a limited reconsideration of the verdict.

Tags: akhil bharat hindu mahasabha, ayodhya dispute