Home »  News »  India

Sunni Waqf Board moves Supreme Court against high court’s Ayodhya order

Wednesday, 15 December 2010 - 2:22am IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: dna
The Sunni Wakf Board has challenged the Allahabad high court judgment on Ayodhya dispute saying the verdict is based on faith, which isn’t acceptable.

The Sunni Wakf Board has challenged the Allahabad high court judgment on Ayodhya dispute saying the verdict is based on faith, which isn’t acceptable.

Faith isn’t an evidence, the petition says, adding that the judgment dividing the 2.77 acres of disputed land into three parts among Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara is not acceptable to it.

HC has committed an error in holding that the building was at the place of birth of Ram, the board says. The Babri mosque was illegally demolished in December 1992, the petition says, adding that its ruins still exist.
The foundation of the mosque is still intact and the title will not extinguish by demolishing the mosque, the petition adds.

The title dispute on Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid structure has already reached SC with Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) challenging the Allahabad HC verdict and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha filing a caveat to pre-empt any ex-parte order on the  title dispute. JUH has also concurred with the Wakf Board saying faith isn’t an evidence of the fact.

The board says it is incumbent on the apex court to uphold the rule of law and not to validate an illegal act.

A three-judge bench of the HC had passed three separate judgments on September 30 but the majority verdict held that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, where the idol of Ram was situated, belongs to Hindus.

While two judges were of the view that the entire disputed land should be divided into three equal parts, each to be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the parties representing Ram Lalla Virajman, one of the judges had held that the entire disputed area belonged to Hindus.

“The claims of the three sets of plaintiffs are mutually exclusive in the sense that each set of plaintiffs has claimed the entire property as its own and no one has sought a decree for partition of the property,” the appeal says.




Jump to comments