 |
|
|
|
Historical and Legal Perspective – Part 2 By Justice Deoki Nandan
1. The premises of the inner courtyard of the three domed structure had been attached by the City Magistrate under section 145 of Cr. P. C. on apprehending a breach of peace, after the transfer of the Idol of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA from the Rama Chabutra, in its outer courtyard, to the Central Dome on 23-12-1949; and a Receiver was appointed for continuing the worship of the Deity. 2. The City Magistrate closed the proceedings by order dated 30. 07. 1953, in view of the injunction issued by the Civil Judge on Jan. 16/19, 1950, in the suit filed by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad. However, the Receiver appointed by the City Magistrate continued to manage the worship until his death in 1970. Thereafter by agreement of the parties in the four civil suits, pending in the court of The Civil Judge, Faizabad, the receivership was taken over by that Court. The appointment as Receiver of the person chosen by the Civil Judge was challenged by a party in the High Court, and after an order of remand, another person was appointed as Receiver in 1974. Even that person’s appointment as Receiver was challenged on appeal in the High Court. Ultimately, in 1986, the High court set aside the appointment of that Receiver by the Civil Judge and directed that all the four suits should be transferred to an Additional District Judge for speedy disposal and appointment of a proper person as Receiver. 3. The Government of UP then, made an application before the High Court for transfer of the suits to the High Court itself for speedy original trial in the interest of maintaining public order and also prayed for stay of hearing of the writ petitions filed, against the order of District Judge Faizabad, dated 1-2-1986 directing the opening of the locks on the doors of the grilled boundary of the inner courtyard of the premises and removal of all obstructions in the free worship of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN under the central dome of the structure at SRI RAMA JANMA BHUMI. 4. While the application was pending, a fifth suit was filed on 1st July 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad, on behalf of the Deities for the following relief: - A.Declaration that the entire premises of Sri Rama Janma Bhumi at Ayodhya belong to the Plaintiff Deities, BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi and ASTHAN SRI RAMA JANMA BHUMI, Ayodhya. B.A perpetual Injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from interfering with, or raising any objection to, or placing any obstruction in the construction of the new Temple at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Ayodhya. 5. According to the case of the Plaintiff Deities – A. The worship of the Plaintiff Deities has continued since ever throughout the ages at SRI RAMA JANMA BHUMI. The place belongs to the Deities. No valid Waqf was ever created or could have been created of the place or any part of it, in view of the title and possession of the Plaintiff Deities thereon. ALLAH, as conceived by the Muslims, never got any title or possession over the premises or any part of them. Occasional acts of trespass by the Muslims, or attempts to get into possession, were successfully resisted and repulsed by the Hindus from time to time. There was no blemish or dent in the continuity of title and possession of the Plaintiff Deities. No title could or did ever vest in ALLAH over any part of the premises by adverse possession or otherwise. No Muslim, nor ALLAH ever had any possession over any part of the premises at any time whatsoever, not to speak of adverse possession. B. No regular prayers have ever been offered in the three domed part of the disputed structure, which was named by the British as JANMASTHAN MASJID, after dividing its front courtyard into two parts and leaving the outer part of the courtyard for the Hindus to worship the idol of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA on the RAMA CHABUTRA and other symbols of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA like the CHARANS and the SITA RASOI, situated therein. The domes and some parts of the disputed structure were destroyed by the Hindus in 1934 as a retaliation to cow slaughter by some Muslims at Ayodhya. No one came forward from among the Muslims to repair the same. The British Government repaired and rebuilt the same. No Muslim dared thereafter to offer Namaz therein. (The story goes that it had been rendered NAPAK by the slaughter of a pig and burial of its carcass). No one acted as the Mutawalli, or Muazzin or Imam or Khatib or Khadim, usually found in every functioning Mosque. Neither of the two Central Boards of Waqfs of the Shias and Sunnis, respectively, established in UP on the enactment of the U.P.Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, took any action or positive steps for establishing the disputed structure as a Mosque. C. After Independence of India from the British Rule, and choice of PAKISTAN as their HOMELAND by the Muslims; by a division of BHARATVARSHA, into two unnatural parts, the VAIRAGIS and the SADHUS of Ayodhya dug up and levelled whatever graves had been left in the area of Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, and purified it by AKHAND PATHA and JAPA by thousands of persons. Ultimately, on the night between the twenty-second/twenty-third December, in fact in the BRAHMA MUHURTA of 23rd December, 1949 the IDOL of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA was transferred from the RAMA CHABUTRA and installed with due ceremony under the central dome of the disputed structure. D. There were no Muslims residing near the place and no resistance was offered by anyone. However, the local authorities got a First Information Report recorded by a Policeman (who was a Hindu) and initiated an action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, between the Hindus and the Muslims generally, without naming any individuals, as parties to the alleged dispute, and attached the three-domed building structure only, alongwith the part of the courtyard adjacent to it. The management of the worship of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN under the central dome was handed over to a Receiver appointed simultaneously. The rest of the courtyard with the RAMA CHABUTRA, the CHARANS, and the SITA-RASOI was not attached. Trillions of Hindus having that faith worshipped BHAGWAN SRI RAMA VIRAJMAN as of yore through the said symbols of HIS PRESENCE. The place itself was visited and worshipped as a sacred place of pilgrimage and worship by them; and had the status of a Deity called ASTHAN SRI RAMA JANMA BHUMI; JANMASTHAN being it’s abbreviated or short name. The Plaintiff Deities were in no way parties to the said dispute. Their possession was in no way affected or disturbed by the attachment, or appointment of a Receiver to manage the worship of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN under the central dome; and their worship and possession over the entire area of the whole of the premises of the disputed structure continued unabated. 6. On application made on behalf of the Deities in the High Court this Fifth suit along with the four suits filed earlier were withdrawn by the High Court by order dated 10-7-1989 for original trial by it; and on application made by the Government of UP thereafter all these five suits were directed to be originally tried by a Special Bench of three Hon’ble Judges, one of them being a Moslem. 7. Legal objections to the maintainability of the suit filed on behalf of Sunni Moslems were raised before the Special Bench by Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das, who is the Plaintiff of the second suit filed in 1950. But the High Court declined to decide them on the ground that a decision of that suit on purely legal basis would not be satisfying. The core question calling for a decision of the dispute on the merits was: Whether there was a Hindu temple at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi that was destroyed for raising the disputed structure. 8. The original trial of the suits was, however, sidelined by the Special Bench in order to hear and decide the Writ Petitions filed against the acquisition of 2.77 acres of land adjoining the premises of the Inner courtyard of the disputed structure. While admitting these writ petitions for hearing, the High Court permitted the Government of UP to take possession of the land acquired but prohibited the raising of any permanent structures until further orders. 9. Possession was taken by the Government of UP on 2-11-91 and the Supreme Court confirmed the aforesaid stay ordered by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, while refusing the prayer for their transfer to itself from the High Court. 10. Levelling of the land was done and during its course some very material evidence came out, which showed that there was a temple which was destroyed and on whose base the disputed structure had been raised. 11. On the call for resuming Kar-Sewa during July 1992 for construction of the Sri Rama Temple from the Shilanyas site (which was at a distance of about 200 feet from the situs of the Idols), negotiations were initiated by the Prime Minister, between Vishva Hindu Parishad on the one side and Babri Masjid Action Committee on the other. They dragged on and collapsed by the end of October. 6th December 1992 was fixed as the date for commencement of the Kar-Sewa for the construction of the temple at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi 12. The hearing of these writ petitions was concluded during the early part of November 1992 but judgement was reserved by the Special Bench of the High Court. 13. The Advocate General of UP pleaded before the Special Bench for early pronouncement of the judgement, well before the date fixed for resumption of the Kar Sewa. His contention was that irrespective of the fact whether the writ petitions were allowed or dismissed, the stay order of the High Court, prohibiting any construction, would automatically lapse and the Kar-Sewaks would be able to assist in starting the construction of the temple from the Singha Dwar at the site of the Shilanyas. However, inspite of the persuasive directions of the Supreme Court, the Special Bench did not sit in court and pronounce its judgement on the writ petitions on 30.11.1992, which was the date fixed in the suits, and fixed 11.12.1992 for the same. 14. The Kar- Sewaks who had assembled in large numbers (estimated at about 3 lakhs by the authorities) were exasperated at the idea of performing Kar-Sewa only with sand and water carried from the Saryu river; and the unexpected happened when the structure was pulled down in about 5 hours on 6-12-1992. by the Kar- Sewaks. According to an unofficial estimate by those who know, the Sappers and Miners would have taken at least 15 days to pull it down by machinery. 15. What followed is too well known to be recounted here. By a resolution dated 27. 12. 1992, the Central Government decided to issue an Ordinance acquiring the area of the disputed structure (including the premises of its inner and outer courtyards) and about 70 acres of the land surrounding it, and to simultaneously refer the aforesaid core question; Whether a Hindu temple at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi was destroyed for raising the disputed structure; for the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. 16. The Ordinance being No. 8 of 1993 was promulgated on 7. 1. 1993 and the Reference was made simultaneously. Under the Ordinance the entire area was vested in management only, and did not confer any beneficial interest therein in the Government. The Central Government was vested with the management of the acquired land for the purpose of resolution of the dispute, which had defied resolution since long and was endangering public order, with the direction that status quo as on 7. 1. 1993 will be maintained in the area of the disputed structure (including the premises of its inner and outer courtyards). 17. The suits pending original trial before the High Court were abated in view of the Reference made to the Supreme Court for its opinion on the said core question. The Government undertook to resolve the dispute in accordance with the opinion to be rendered by the Supreme Court on the said core question. 18. Writ petitions were filed against the Acquisition Ordinance and preliminary objections were raised to the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. The Supreme Court heard these matters at length and by Judgement dated 24. 10. 1994, upheld the Acquisition Act No. 33 of 1993, which had replaced the Ordinance, except for the provision abating the suits, and declined to answer the question referred to it for opinion. 19. On the setting aside of the provision abating the suits, their hearing recommenced before the Special Bench of the High Court, and it is now more than 6 years since then that the trial has been going on before it. The recording of oral evidence in the suit filed by the Sunni Muslims commenced more than four years ago. Only 17 witnesses have been examined so far out of a list of more than 100. The recording of oral evidence in the other suits, except that of Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das, taken out of turn on commission as an exceptional case, has not yet started. The list of witnesses in these suits is also pretty long, and exceeds the figure of 100. 20. According to the evidence led so far in the suits, the place where the disputed structure, claimed to be the BABRI MASJID, stood before its destruction on December 6, 1992, was described in the revenue records of village RAMKOT or KOT-RAMCHANDER, i.e., the FORT of RAMCHANDER, prepared during the first settlement after the annexation of AVADH by the British, as JANMASTHAN, i.e., the BIRTH-PLACE. The village RAMKOT or KOT RAMCHANDER is now mohalla RAMKOT of the town of Ayodhya. 21. The question arises: Whose JANMASTHAN? The only answer is the JANMASTHAN of LORD RAMA in the precincts of whose fort: RAMKOT: it is situated. There is only ONE RAMA, who was born as the son of Maharaja Dashratha of the solar dynasty at Ayodhya and was the incarnation of Lord Vishnu according to the faith of the Hindus; and the JANAMSTHAN is his BIRTHPLACE. i.e. the place where He manifested Himself in human form for the destruction of demons and the establishment of the rule of righteousness, termed as Ramrajya. Lord Rama has come to be worshipped as such throughout the ages. Even His Janmasthan is worshipped as a sacred place, as the place of manifestation of Lord Vishnu in human form, by the pilgrims who throng the place round the year, and more particularly in very large numbers on the date of His birth: the ninth day of the bright phase of the moon of the month of Chaitra. The first nine days of the bright phase of the moon of the month of Chaitra are called Navratra and regarded as days of fasting and prayer by the devout Hindus, culminating in the celebration of Ramnavami on the ninth day as the birthday of Lord Rama. Precisely six months later the first nine days of the bright phase of the Moon of the month of Ashwin are again called Navratra and regarded as days of fasting and prayer by the devout Hindus and culminate in the celebration of Vijayadashmi on the tenth day as the day of Victory of Good over Evil after the killing of Ravana by Lord Rama. Both these celebrations are part of the lore of Lord Rama, and millions throng the Janamsthan at Ayodhya to worship Him, during the two Navratris and on the Ramnavami day. 22. During the First War of Independence of India from the British yoke, called the Sepoy Mutiny by the British, Hindus and Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder against the British. At Ayodhya the Muslims were led by Ameer Ali and the Hindus by Baba Ramcharan Das. They agreed that the Muslims would stop all interference with the rights of worship and possession over the disputed structure at the JANMASTHAN and would allow them to peacefully enjoy their exclusive possession thereon. On regaining control in 1858, the British hanged to death both Ameer Ali and Baba Ramchandra Das by a Tamarind tree on the Kuberteela, i.e. the mound of Kuber (the heavenly treasurer) near the disputed structure. And thereafter, in 1859, the British Government divided the premises of the disputed structure into two parts: one consisting of the three-domed structure with a part of the front courtyard for the Muslims and the other comprising of the Rama Chabutra, i.e. Rama’s Platform, the Charans, i.e. the Footprints and the Sita Rasoi, i.e. Sita’s Kitchen, and the rest of the courtyard containing them, for the Hindus. 23. During the First Revenue Settlement of the British rule in Avadh, in the Eighteen Sixties, the British picked up a loyal Zamindar belonging to the Shia sect of Muslims, and recognised him as the lawful heir of Meer Baqi Isfahani, who was a Shia Muslim and was believed to have erected the three domed structure at the JANMASTHAN in 935 AH i.e. 1528 AD during the reign of Babur, and was said to have been in receipt of a Nankar i.e. a grant for personal maintenance, of Rs 302/3/6 per annum; and in lieu of it the British Government made a revenue free grant of superior proprietary rights, i.e. zamindari, of villages Sholepur and Bahoranpur, to him, "to be continued as long as the object for which the grant was made, is kept up", on the added conditions of rendering Police and Military service and remaining loyal to the British. The object for which the grant was made does not seem to have been fulfilled. There were more than one complaints of breach of trust against the descendants of the grantee. They even denied that the grant was a Waqf, and would seem to have pocketed the compensation for the proprietary rights on the abolition of zamindari in UP in the Nineteen Fifties, instead of taking an annuity in lieu thereof as a Waqf for the maintenance of its object. The three-domed structure was also partly demolished in 1934 by the Vairagis. The descendants of the grantees did not repair it. Instead the British Government repaired it. The object for which the grant was made was not kept up. The Government did not enforce it. Thus the grant and its object both vanished. If any semblance of the object remained in the form of the disputed structure, even after the vanishing of the grant, that too completely vanished with its complete occupation in 1949 and demolition in 1992. 24. It is thus indisputable that the place where the disputed structure stood, is the JANMASTHAN or the birth-place of Lord Rama, which has been by tradition and faith of trillions of Hindus a sacred place of pilgrimage and worship of Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman thereat, and that they have been doing so despite some passing interference during the time of Babur and again during the British rule. 25. The earliest copy of the inscriptions on stone, which tell the tale of construction of the disputed structure is that maintained in the British Library in England. D Buchanan had been deputed by the East India Company to survey certain places including the disputed structure. According to the report submitted by him to his masters in England, sometimes at the end of the Eighteenth century of the Christian era, the tale of the construction of the disputed structure is to the following effect: " Prince named Tugli Khan had a wazir, who had a daughter. She was married to Moosa Ashiqan (quaintly translated as ‘the Comforter of Lovers’ by Buchanan). The Wazir died (again quaintly described as his having departed from this dwelling of mortality to the abode of eternity") The King having ordered the seizure of the Wazir’s property, Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that "This world is Nothing"; he ordered that people should carry off whatever money and effects were in his house, which they did. But some grain was left. On that he directed them to carry off that also. After that only a piece of sackcloth was left on which the horses ate gram. Moosa Ashiqan said: "That will be of use to me" and having torn a hole in its middle, he threw it over his shoulder and became a dervish. On hearing Moosa Ashiqan’s tale of becoming a dervish, Babur appeared before him privately. Seeing the wretched condition of Babur, Moosa Ashiqan gave him some sweets to eat and said, "Thou shalt be King". As Babur was departing, Moosa Ashiqan told him " I am annoyed by the Hindus who are constantly ringing their bells – when thou becomest King, thou shalt build a Masjid at this place." Babur forgot Moosa Ashiqan’s direction on becoming King, whereupon Moosa Ashiqan reminded him of it, and Meer Baqaoolla Khan erected this Masjid on receiving Babur’s command. 26. This tale of construction of the disputed structure on the instigation of Moosa Ashiqan finds corroboration in the book: "The Disputed Mosque" by Dr Susheel Srivastava, (originally a Hindu but now a Muslim on conversion to Islam) a teacher in the History department of the University of Allahabad, who was produced as a witness by the plaintiffs of the suit filed by the Sunni Muslims. Dr Srivastava has recorded the following in the last paragraph at page 71 of the Book: " Both the local Hindus and Muslims describe the same circumstances, with slight variations, of the construction of Babur’s Mosque. They say Babur ordered the destruction of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple on the recommendation of a Muslim fakir or Ascetic. When Babur came to Ayodhya, goes the story; the Ramjanmabhoomi area was under the control of Mahatma Shyamananda. He was also the caretaker of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple. Shyamanada was a very famous saint and he did not believe in any distinction of sect or creed. It is said that the fakir Fazl Abbas Aashikan and Jalalshah, took shelter with him. Impressed by the huge crowds of people who came for the darshan of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple, they thought that if there was a mosque at the same spot, they would be able to control and be as popular…" Further on, at page 72, second paragraph: " The myth further says that, when the fakirs were with Shyamananda, Babur arrived in Ayodhya. They approached him with their proposal and forced him to agree… some hold the opinion that Musa Ashiqan was impressed by the spiritual atmosphere of the Ramjanmabhoomi. He often sat inside the temple. One day he was thrown out and swore to destroy it. Yet another story in circulation relates that, when Babur came to Ayodhya, he was exhausted, having been at war with the Rajputs and having come to fight the Pathans at Ayodhya. He had been unable to suppress the latter and was feeling dispirited. He approached a large number of religious men, both Hindu and Muslim to bless him with victory in war against the Pathans. In Ayodhya he heard about the miracles of the fakir Musa Ashiqan and Jalalshah. He went to seek their blessings and it was then that Musa Ashiqan asked him to destroy the Ramjanmabhoomi temple and construct the Babri Masjid in its place. Musa Ashiqan told Babur that once he completed this pious task, his mission would be accomplished." 27. The last one of these versions of the facts leading to the circumstances that led to the construction of the disputed structure, as recorded by Dr Srivastava on the basis of the traditions current at Ayodhya among the Hindus and Muslims both, corresponds most nearly to the tale reported by Buchanan in his report on the basis of the stone inscriptions in Persian on the disputed structure. 28. Again at page 78 of his book "The Disputed Mosque" Dr Srivastava goes on to record the following facts: - " The Muslims of Ayodhya / Faizabad, like their Hindu counterparts, have several myths about their places of worship… They also believe that the Emperor Babur came to Ayodhya in 1528 and destroyed the Ramajanmabhoomi temple, to propitiate Pir Fazal Abbas Musa Ashiqan. The Muslim saint lived in the area southwest of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple, where there is today, a graveyard, said to contain the grave of the saint. His tomb is marked by two inverted black-stone pillars half-buried in the earth. The local Muslims are convinced that the use of the stone pillars in the mosque indicates that the material of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple was used in the construction of the mosque. They further claim that similar pillars were put at the head of the grave as a mark of respect." 29. This narration of the facts found by Dr Srivastava at Ayodhya puts a seal of authenticity on the tale that the disputed structure was constructed after the destruction of the Hindu temple at the Janmasthan in its place and with its materials, on the instigation of Fazl Abbas Musa Ashiqan. 30. According to the case on behalf of the Deities of Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman, and the Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya, by their next friend: "Such a structure raised by the force of arms on the land belonging to the Plaintiff Deities, after destroying the ancient temple situated thereat, with its materials, including the Kasauti pillars with figures of Hindu gods carved thereon, could not be a mosque and did not become one inspite of the attempts to treat it as a mosque during the British rule after the annexation of Avadh." And further on: "ALLAH never accepts a dedication of property which does not belong to the Waqif, that is the person who purports to dedicate property to ALLAH for purposes recognised as pious or charitable, as Waqf under the Muslim law. By his acts of trespass and violence for raising a mosque on the site of the Temple after destroying it by force, Mir Baqi committed a highly un-Islamic act. His attempt to convert the temple into a mosque did not, therefore, create a valid dedication of property to ALLAH, whether in fact or in law, and it never became a mosque." 31. The facts further pleaded on behalf of the said Deities are: "That in spite of all that Mir Baqi tried to do with the temple, the land always continued to vest in the Plaintiff Deities, and they never surrendered their possession over it. Their possession continued in fact and in law. The ASTHAN never went out of the possession of the Deity and His worshippers. They continued to worship Him through such symbols as the CHARAN and SITA RASOI, and the idol of Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman on the Chabutra, called the Rama Chabutra, within the enclosed courtyard of the building directly in front of the arched opening of the Southern dome. No one could enter the building except after passing through these places of Hindu worship." According to Muslim religion and law, there can be no idol worship within the courtyard of a mosque, and the passage to a mosque must be free and unobstructed and open at all times to the ‘Faithful’. It can never be through a Hindu place of worship. There can be no co-sharing of title or possession with ALLAH in the case of a mosque. His possession must be exclusive. A mosque must be built in a place of peace and quiet, but near to a place where there is a sizable Muslim population, according to the tenets of Islam; and as insisted upon by it, a mosque cannot be built in a place which is surrounded on all sides by Temples, where the sound of music or conch shells or Ghanta Ghariyals must always disturb the peace and quiet of the place." And then: A mosque must have a minaret for calling the Azan. According to Baillie: When an assembly of worshippers pray in a masjid with permission, (that is after abandonment of the land by its full owner and construction of the building for prayers by the Faithful) that is delivery. But it is a condition that the prayers be with Azan, or the regular call, and be public not private, for though there should be an assembly yet if it is without Azan, and if the prayers are private instead of public, the place is not a masjid, according to the two disciples." (Pt I, Bk. IX, Chap VII, Sec 1 p.605) Indeed there has been no mosque without a minaret after the first century from the Flight. (P R Ganapathi Iyer: Law relating to Hindu and Muslim Endowments, 2nd Edition, 1918, Chap XVII, P 388). Admittedly, there was no minaret in the disputed structure for calling the Azan; and there was in fact no water tank for VAZOO in the courtyard, and there were the Kasauti pillars with the figures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses inscribed thereon inside it. And lastly according to the claim of the plaintiffs of the suit on behalf of the Muslims, the disputed structure was surrounded on all sides by a graveyard. known as the GANJ-E-SHAHIDAN. Therefore, it could not be a MASJID, for the offering of regu1ar prayers ordained for the Muslims is prohibited inside a graveyard. Only the NAMAZ-E-JANAZA or the funeral prayer on the death of a person buried therein is offered in a graveyard. 32. This, however, is not the end of the story. Recent archeological finds have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the temple built by the GAHADAWAL kings in the twelfth century AD at the JANMASTHAN, was of VISHNUHARI, and that was destroyed by Mir Baqi at the JANMASTHAN for raising the disputed structure, with its materials. And that being so the Muslims must give up their claim to the site of the disputed structure, since demolished, at SRI RAMA JANMA BHUMI, Ayodhya, in accordance with the public declaration of their leaders. 33. In view of the sentiments of trillions of Hindus, represented by the Saints and Mahatmas assembled in the Maha Kumbha of the 1st Century of the New Millenium, desiring the immediate commencement of the construction of a magnificent Temple at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, of which the model is on display, from a date to be fixed here and now, a question has been asked : whether the doing so would amount to contempt of court: - 34. My answer is a positive ‘NO’, for the simple reason that neither the site of the disputed structure, where the worship of Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala is continuing, nor the land surrounding it, including the Shilanyas site, from where the construction is proposed to be started, are in the possession or receivership of any court. The dispute before the High Court in the suits, which are pending before it, is only about the title to the site of the demolished disputed structure (including its inner and outer courtyards). 35. The status quo is required to be maintained only on the site of the demolished structure and the Central Government is functioning as a Statutory Receiver only in respect thereof. It has not been appointed as the Receiver of the said disputed area by any order of the Court in the said suits. Indeed, the Central Government refused to be impleaded as a party in these suits and the High Court upheld its refusal. The acquired area vests in the Central Government only for managing it. The beneficial interest therein does not vest in it. 36. According to the interpretation of the Acquisition Act No. 33 of 1993 by the Supreme Court the title to the disputed area, i.e., the site of the demolished disputed structure, does not vest in the Central Government. 37. The title to the rest of the area acquired under the Act vests in the Central Government, only nominally, as a trustee and it is under a duty to return it to the original owners, unless required for a satisfactory resolution of the dispute. 38. According to the law of our land, there is no bar against a party taking possession of the land owned by it, even if its title is disputed in a court. The doing so does not amount to any contempt of Court. 39. The possession of the Central
Government of the disputed area and the adjacent acquired land under the
said Act No. 33 of 1993 can be demonstrated against and the Central Government
can be forced by public opinion not to act too harshly against those demonstrating
against or violating its possession.
18/01/2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|