Ayodhya verdict may be like Lahore judgment

If one goes by a directive issued by the Supreme Court on October 24, 1994, the Ayodhya dispute must be decided in accordance with a law laid down by the Privy Council in Lahore in 1940.

Lahore’s famous Naulakha Bazar has Gurdwara Shahid Ganj Singhnian where earlier a mosque built in 1722 was situated. The mosque was demolished in 1935. When Anjuman Islamia, a Muslim body, sought restoration of its possession, the Privy Council ruled that the rights of Muslims over the property had ceased since the 12-year time during which it could have been restored to them had elapsed.

The council also said that since no one had sued within a statutory period to evict the unauthorised persons who had become owners of the property due to adverse occupation, the plaintiff “born 100 years later” could not claim any rights.

Sikhs occupied the Shahid Ganj mosque after they took over Lahore in 1762. They remained in its possession until the end of their rule in 1849.

When the British came in 1849, the mosque was still with Sikhs.

The litigation was started in 1850 by Nur Ahmad, claiming to be a descendant caretaker of the mosque. On June 25, 1855, he filed another suit against Sikhs, which was also dismissed.

In 1925, Shahid Ganj Gurdwara passed the Sikh Gurdwara Act that included the shrine.

In July 1935, the building of Shahid Ganj was demolished, leading to riots in Lahore and elsewhere.

A fresh plaint reached the court seeking a “declaration” that the building was a mosque in which all followers of Islam had a right to worship. It also sought a restrain order against any improper use of the building and interference with Muslims’ right of worship and injunction against reconstruction of the demolished Sikh shrine.

The Lahore high court rejected the pleas in 1938. Two years later, the Privy Council concurred with the court’s view, allowing the gurdwara to live forever.