Ayodhya:Judges say divide disputed land into 3

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled by a majority verdict that the disputed land in Ayodhya 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.

One-third portion will go to Hindus (a third for Ram Lalla), another one-third to Muslims(one-third for the Waqf Board) and the last one-third to the other (a third for the Nirmohi Akhara

), until then, the land will remain in the custody of the federal government.

The court said in its verdict the issue between the Hindus and Muslims should be resolved through negotiations between the two sides.

The controversial land of Babri Masjid will remain in possession of the federation, as the case of Sunni Board has been dismissed, according to media reports, 'The Sunni Waqf Board says it will appeal in the Supreme Court against the Ayodhya verdict delivered today in Lucknow.'

In the separate judgements on the sensitive 60-year old title dispute on Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid 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.

Justices Khan and Agarwal decreed that the 2.7 acre land comprising the disputed site should be divided three equal parts and be given to Sunni Waqf Board, 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.

According to media, the judges who gave the verdict tendered the resignation.

Ayodhya Verdict

In a latest development The Indian Supreme Court today has deffered the Ayodhya verdict by at least week.The verdict was to be delivered tomorrow.The matter was heard by a Bench headed by Justice R V Raveendran.

The court issued notice the warring parties to the petition filed by a retired bureacrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi challenging the order of Lucknow College Allahabad High Court refused the order to postpone the verdict in the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute costume title.

He posted a question for further hearing on September 28.

A bench consisting of Judge R. Raveendran and HL Gokhale was sentenced a week after the controversial views on entertainment petition challenging the high court order.

Raveendran Justice opined that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be fired while the validity of Gokhale, on the other hand, suggested that the notice must be given to explore options for settlement.

However, Justice Raveendran, who headed the bench, opted to take the opinion of Justice Gokhale.

In the order, Justice Raveendran said: “When one of the judges dissenting views, the tradition is to give notice.”

Notification was sent to the Attorney General of the Supreme Court.

Apex court bench of judges Altmas Kabir and AK Patnaik was yesterday refused to hear an urgent request to postpone the Ayodhya title suit verdict.

By refusing to hear a petition filed by a retired bureaucrat Tripathi, the bench said that he had no “definition” to consider this issue and added that he would be listed before another bench.

Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Counsel appearing on Tripathi, said the Supreme Court may give a healing touch, try a last effort at mediation.

He said that it is possible that in the face of the Supreme Court notified the opposing sides can sit through to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Rohatgi said that next Tuesday by his attempt to tell the court that the issue of the decision should be deferred to religious, political and national leaders can try to work out a solution.

He also said that this is not a matter of just 10 or 20 sides in the case, but connected with hundreds of thousands of rupees and the people and mediation could result in some way.

Tripathi was yesterday moved to court top-five days after the Lucknow bench, the Supreme Court rejected his request for a postponement of sentence and to allow mediation to find solutions to contentious dispute.

Allahabad High Court has also introduced the “exemplary costs” Rs50, 000, calling for efforts Tripathi out-of-court settlement of disputes, as “a mischievous attempt.”

Petition filed by Tripathi seek some time to mediate between parties, as well as contested charges.

Tripathi, in his statement to the top court, said that the sentence may violate the general harmony, and lead to violence in the country.

In a petition filed by a lawyer Sunil Jain, he cited several reasons for postponing the sentence, which he said would be a “public interest” in connection with the apprehension of communal flare up, the upcoming Commonwealth Games, the elections in Bihar and violence in the Kashmir Valley and the Naxal-affected states.

The petition was afraid that would not be sufficient security in Uttar Pradesh to ensure safety.

Tripathi also referred to the earlier order of the court on July 27, finally, that the parties concerned to approach the employee freedom of Special Affairs for the formation of the bench, is it possible to remove the dispute or arrival in the understanding on the basis of consensus.

One of the three-judge bench in Lucknow, however, disagree with the majority of the order dated September 17, rejecting the request for postponement of sentence Ayodhya to house and gave a dissenting opinion that an amicable agreement could be explored in a protracted legal dispute.

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, while not concurring with the opinion of the other two judges – Justice SU Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal – also said in his dissenting decision, that he was not consulted when the three judge bench ordered the dismissal request for mediation.


related post about this Ayodhya Verdict

• Supreme Court defers Ayodhya verdict .....
  

• Apex court defers Ayodhya verdict ....

• Ayodhya verdict: Calm after apex court stay....

• Allahabad HC refuses to defer Ayodhya verdict..

• Ayodhya verdict: The Justices

• Mumbai braces for Ayodhya verdict

Don't reach any hasty conclusion on Ayodhya verdict: Chidambaram

NEW DELHI: Appealing for peace ahead of Friday's pronouncement of the Ayodhya title verdict, home minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday said it would be inappropriate to reach any hasty conclusion that one side has won or that the other side has lost.

In a statement two days ahead of the Allahabad High Court judgement, he asked states to take adequate measures to maintain law and order, especially in sensitive areas.



The home minister said it is possible that there will be one or more judgements delivered by the three-judge special bench.

"The judgements would have to be read carefully, and the findings of the hon'ble judges on each of the issues in the four suits would have to be analysed meticulously, before any conclusions may be drawn," he said.

"It would be inappropriate to reach any hasty conclusion that one side has 'won' or that the other side has 'lost'," he said.

Chidambaram said it would be reasonable to assume that one or both sides would immediately apply to the special bench for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

"I would, therefore, appeal to all the parties to the suits as well as the general public and the media to reserve their opinions on the judgement or judgements of the special bench and not make any hasty pronouncements," he said while reading out the statement to reporters.

Read more.........