Ayodhya case purely a 'property dispute': Hindu bodies to Supreme Court

The Hindu faction in the title dispute in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case have asserted that Ayodhya now is purely a “property dispute” and one cannot rely on issues of political or religious sensitivities as a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench.

The country has marched far ahead of the incidents of December 6, 1992 (communal riots had broken out shortly after the Babri Masjid was demolished by karsevaks), and now the matter should be decided only as a land dispute, senior advocate Harish Salve said, representing one of the original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad.

Appearing before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Salve added there was no need for a larger bench to look in this issue since a three-judge bench was already seized of it.

Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity Ram Lalla Virajman, backed Salve and rejected any plea seeking the constitution of a larger bench.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for one of the Muslim petitioners had sought the transfer of this case to a larger bench on the grounds of the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance.

On December 6, 1992 karsevaks had destroyed the controversial structure known as Babri Masjid and razed to the ground. The court is hearing 13 appeals against a 2010 judgment by Allahabad High Court on four civil suits filed over the title of the land that is known to Hindus as the 'Ram Janmabhoomi', or the land where Hindu God Lord Ram was born.

A three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered the partition of the land equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the deity, Ram Lalla.