Ayodhya case: Hindu Mahasabha opposes 5-acre land to Muslims

Tribune News Service
New Delhi, December 9

 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking review of its November 9 direction to allot 5-acre land to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for building a mosque in Ayodhya.

The Mahasabha -- a litigant in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute – sought a "limited review" of the top court's verdict, becoming the first Hindu body to file a review petition in the case.

There was another petition jointly filed by 40 persons, including activists, seeking review of Ayodhya verdict, contending the judgment – which paved the way for construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya -- "errs in both fact and law". The activists included historian Irfan Habib, economist Prabhat Patnaik, Harsh Mander, Nandini Sundar and John Dayal, who were "deeply aggrieved" by the verdict.

The top court had earlier refused to hear anyone unconnected with the case.

A five-judge bench of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde (current CJI), Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer had on November 9 given the 2.77-acre disputed land to Ram Lalla. It had given five acre land to Muslims at an alternative site at Ayodhya for construction of a new mosque.

The first review petition in the matter was filed in the top court by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, legal heir of original litigant M Siddiq and also the Uttar Pradesh president of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind on December 2. He contended that "complete justice" could only be done by ordering reconstruction of the Babri Masjid.

While key litigant, Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board, decided against challenging the verdict, Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi has sought review of the verdict on 14 counts.

Thereafter, Maulana Mufti Hasbullah, Moulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Mishbahuddin, Mohd Umar and Haji Nahboob – all supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) – filed review petitions on December 6. They attacked the SC verdict on the ground that it sanctioned serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law that led to destruction of the mosque in 1992.

The Mahasabha said the findings recorded by the top court "terming the disputed structure as mosque is apparently not correct and against the evidence and material on record".

"The Muslims have failed to prove that the construction in question was mosque, while on the other hand Hindus have proved that the place in question is being worshipped as birth place of Lord Ram and therefore, there is no material on record to declare the disputed structure as mosque," read the review plea filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain.