Ram Janambhoomi can’t be shifted to some other place, Ram Lalla’s counsel tells SC

 

Neither Nirmohi Akhara nor the Sunni Wakf Board can take benefit of the legal principal of adverse possession to stake claim over the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya, counsel for Ram Lalla told the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the deity claimed ownership over the entire piece of land.

 

According to the doctrine of adverse possession, a person without having title of the property can become its owner on the ground of his possession if the person having lawful title of the property in question does not evict him for 12 years.

 

“Hindus have always asserted their right to worship at the birthplace and therefore it cannot be a case of adverse possession. Adverse possession comes into effect in the case of an alienable property and here the property, being the birthplace, assumes the character of the deity and hence becomes inalienable,” senior counsel CS Vaidyanathan, representing Ram Lalla, told a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.

 

On day nine of the hearing in the Ram Janm Bhoomi-Babri Masjid case, Vaidyanathan said if an ordinary temple was getting submerged due to construction of a dam, devotees can shift the idol to another place.

 

“Ram Janambhoomi cannot be shifted to some other place. It’s unique and the sanctity and the dignity are attached to this very place,” Vaidyanathan contended. The birthplace itself was a deity which can’t be shifted, he added.

 

He said the birthplace of Lord Ram itself was a deity and no one could claim ownership right over the sacred place by merely putting up a structure.

 

“If the property itself is the birthplace of Lord Ram, then no one claim ownership right over it by merely putting up any structures like mosque,” Vaidyanathan told the Bench which also included Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

 

“The Bench—which is hearing cross-appeals against the September 30, 2010 order of the Allahabad High court dividing the 2.77 acre disputed land equally between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board—will resume the hearing on Thursday.”

 

While concluding his submissions after marathon arguments running into five days, Vaidyanathan opposed the claim of Nirmohi Akhara over the disputed land. 

 

“Under the law, an idol is always considered as a perpetual minor and its ‘Shabait’ (devotee) or trustee cannot alienate or claim right over the property on the ground of adverse possession as against their own deity,” he said.

 

Vaidyanathan also sought to counter Sunni Wakf Board’s claim, saying: “People were worshipping is good enough to show it that it was a temple and no one can demolish it and put up a structure, which, according me, is illegal and can claim the title through adverse possession.”

 

He said there cannot be destruction of an idol and the temple, as the birthplace of the deity cannot be “desecrated”, “occupied” or “traded”. Even if the idol is broken or destroyed, its character remains intact, as it is considered immortal, he added.