Why Ayodhya Disputed Land Was Handed Entirely To Ram Lalla

The court also ordered that a five-acre plot at a prominent site in Ayodhya would be given to Muslims to build a new mosque.

 Share
EMAIL
PRINT
COMMENTS
Why Ayodhya Disputed Land Was Handed Entirely To Ram Lalla

The Hindus, said the Supreme Court, "have established a clear case of a possessory title" (File)


New Delhi: 

The Supreme Court on Saturday ruled in a unanimous verdict that the disputed land in Ayodhya belonged entirely to the deity Ram Lalla or infant Lord Ram, paving the way for the construction of a temple. The court also ordered that a five-acre plot at a prominent site in Ayodhya would be given to Muslims to build a new mosque.

On the disputed site claimed by both Hindus and Muslims for decades, the court said on "...on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslim."

The Hindus, said the Supreme Court, "have established a clear case of a possessory title to the outside courtyard by virtue of long, continued and unimpeded worship at the Ramchabutra and other objects of religious significance."

The court said: "on the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it."

Also, entry into the three-domed structure (inner courtyard) was possible "only by seeking access through either of the two doors on the eastern and northern sides of the outer courtyard, which were under the control of Hindu devotees."

On the inner courtyard, said the court, "there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857. The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century."

According to the judgement, the evidence indicates that despite the existence of a mosque at the site, Hindu worship at the place believed to be the birth-place of Lord Ram was not restricted.

"The existence of an Islamic structure at a place considered sacrosanct by the Hindus did not stop them from continuing their worship at the disputed site and within the precincts of the structure prior to the incidents of 1856-7. The physical structure of an Islamic mosque did not shake the faith and belief of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site," the judges said.

There is no evidence to the contrary by the Muslims to indicate that their possession of the disputed structure of the mosque was exclusive and that the offering of namaz was exclusionary of the Hindus.

"Hindu worship at Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi and at other religious places including the setting up of a Bhandar clearly indicated their open, exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard. The Muslims have not been in possession of the outer courtyard. Despite the construction of the wall in 1858 by the British and the setting up of the Ramchabutra in close-proximity of the inner dome, Hindus continued to assert their right to pray inside the three-domed structure," the Ayodhya judgement noted.



Get Breaking news, live coverage, and Latest News from India and around the world on NDTV.com. Catch all the Live TV action on NDTV 24x7 and NDTV India. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram for latest news and live news updates.

NDTV Beeps - your daily newsletter

................................ Advertisement ................................

................................ Advertisement ................................

................................ Advertisement ................................