M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors2020-1 SCC 1; Ayodhya Dispute Case

Advertisements

Facts of the case:
The span of this litigation is of nearly seven decades. This case deals with a land dispute of an area measuring 1500 square meters and is located in Ayodhya, which is known as the birthplace of Lord Ram or Ramjanmabhoomi. Respondents claim that the land belongs to Lord Shri Ram and that Mughal Emperor Babur destroyed the Hindu temple that existed over the land to build a mosque.

On the contrary, the appellants claim that the respondents’ contentions are incorrect and that Babur didn’t destroy the Hindu temple. They believe that it was the Hindus who started worshipping in their mosque and claimed the land to be theirs. Acquisition of certain areas of the Ayodhya Act of 1993 gave power to the Central Government to acquire an area of about 68 acres, including the disputed premises.

In 1856-57, Hindus and Muslims started fighting in the vicinity of this structure. This led to an increase in violence. So, in order to maintain law and order in British India, the colonial government decided to divide the whole area into two parts – the outer was one for the Hindus as it had many Hindu elements like the Sita Rasoi and Ramchabutra and the inner portion was given to Muslim. Further, a door was constructed on the northern side of the outer courtyard by the British government and this door was to be managed by the Hindus. But still, the dispute didn’t come to an end as both parties aimed to exclude one another from the area occupied by them.

However, this controversy of who owns the land was still in dispute. Mahant Raghubir Das applied to the district court of Faizabad seeking permission for constructing a temple. This took a new turn when on the night between 22 and 23 December 1949, a group of about 50 to 60 people desecrated the mosque. It even broke the locks of the mosque and placed Lord Ram’s idols in the central dome, followed by riots and the imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits the assembly of more than four people in a public place.

In 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a suit seeking permission to perform puja inside the mosque. But the court barred entry for both parties. Later on, in 1986, the Faizabad district court’s judge permitted Hindus to worship inside the mosque. Finally, the Babri Masjid was destroyed by 2,00,000 karsevaks on 6th December 1992.

The present case was filed in 2010 by various parties seeking partition and possession of the disputed land of Ayodhya. Allahabad High Court bifurcated the disputed land into three equal parts and allotted them to the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, and the Hindu parties. The parties were not satisfied with the verdict of the High Court so they appealed to the Supreme Court. A five-Judge Bench was formed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in 2019 and the final judgment came on 9 November 2019.

Issues Raised:

1. Is the division of Ayodhya land title between the three suits of the Nirmohi Akhada, Sunni Waqf Board, and Ram Lalla by the Allahabad High Court valid?
2. Does the birthplace of Ram i.e., Ram Janmabhoomi qualify as a juristic entity that is independent of the existence of idols? and if this is true then is it safe from possession claims as a juristic entity?
3. Are the three suits maintainable and are not barred from limitation act of 1908?

Suits:

1. Suit 4 of 1989, filed by Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, seeking the declaration of the birthplace of Lord Ram as a legal entity and his right to worship.
2. Suit 5 of 1989, filed by Nirmohi Akhara seeking the title to the disputed land.
3. Suit 6 of 1989, filed by Sunni Central Waqf Board seeking possession of the disputed land and removal of idols from inside the Babri Masjid.
4. Suit 7 of 1989, filed by the Bhavya Ram Janmabhoomi Trust seeking the title to the disputed land.
5. Title Suit (Civil) No. 1 of 1961, filed by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board against the state of Uttar Pradesh and others seeking a declaration of title and possession of the disputed land.

Contentions of the Petitioners:

1. Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman: Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman contended that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and was a juristic entity capable of owning property. The petitioner argued that the title to the disputed land belonged to Lord Ram and that he had the right to worship at the disputed site.
2. Nirmohi Akhara: Nirmohi Akhara contended that it was the custodian and manager of the disputed site and had been in possession of the site since time immemorial. The petitioner claimed that it had the right to perform puja and other religious ceremonies at the disputed site and sought the title to the disputed land.
3. Sunni Central Waqf Board: The Sunni Central Waqf Board contended that the Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Babur, the first Mughal emperor, and was a waqf property. The petitioner claimed that the disputed land belonged to the Sunni Waqf Board and sought possession of the disputed land.
4. Bhavya Ram Janmabhoomi Trust: The Bhavya Ram Janmabhoomi Trust contended that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and was owned by the deity. The petitioner claimed that the title to the disputed land belonged to the deity and sought possession of the disputed land.
5. Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board: The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board contended that the disputed land was waqf property and was under its management and control. The petitioner claimed that the title to the disputed land belonged to the Sunni Waqf Board and sought possession of the disputed land.

Contentions of the Respondents:

1. Mahant Suresh Das and the Hindu parties: Mahant Suresh Das and the Hindu parties contended that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a pre-existing temple. The respondents claimed that the disputed land belonged to the deity and that they had the right to worship and manage the site.
2. Nirmohi Akhara: Nirmohi Akhara also claimed that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that it had been in possession of the site since time immemorial. The respondent argued that it was the rightful owner of the disputed land and that it had the right to manage and perform religious ceremonies at the site.
3. Hindu parties: Other Hindu parties, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, contended that the disputed land was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that the title to the land belonged to the deity. The respondents claimed that the Babri Masjid was built on the ruins of a temple and sought the title to the disputed land.
4. Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board: The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board contended that the disputed land was a waqf property and was under its management and control. However, the respondents argued that the Babri Masjid was built on the ruins of a temple and that the waqf board did not have any right to the disputed land.
5. State of Uttar Pradesh: The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that it was a neutral party in the dispute and that it would accept the decision of the court. The State of Uttar Pradesh claimed that it had taken measures to maintain law and order at the disputed site and sought a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court’s verdict was legally unsustainable as
it had partitioned the land among the parties without determining the title. The Supreme Court
observed that the disputed land belonged to the government under the Acquisition of Certain
Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993, and directed the central government to set up a trust to manage
the building of a temple on the site in dispute. The Supreme Court also instructed the
government at the centre to allot an alternate five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for the
construction of a mosque.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court of India, on November 9, 2019, delivered its unanimous verdict in the M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das & Ors case. The court gave its ruling in favor of the Hindu parties and granted them the disputed land while providing an alternative plot of land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for building a mosque. The court held that the underlying structure below the demolished Babri Masjid was not Islamic in nature and that the mosque was built on top of the ruins of a temple. The court further held that the Muslim side had failed to establish continuous and exclusive possession of the disputed land. The court stated that the Hindu parties had established their right to worship at the disputed site and that the Archaeological Survey of India’s report confirmed the presence of a temple at the site.

The court also held that the government’s acquisition of the land in 1993 was not illegal. The court ordered the formation of a trust, called the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, to oversee the construction of a temple at the disputed site. The trust was to have 15 members, including one member from the Nirmohi Akhara, which was granted the right to be a part of the trust without any voting rights.

The Sunni Central Waqf Board was granted an alternative plot of land of 5 acres in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque. The court directed the central government to provide the necessary land to the Board.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India, in its unanimous verdict, granted the disputed land to the Hindu parties for the construction of a temple, while providing an alternative plot of land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. The judgment marked the end of a long-standing legal dispute over the ownership of the disputed site in Ayodhya.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s verdict in M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors case brought an end to the long-standing dispute over the ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya. The verdict was widely hailed for its impartiality and fairness in resolving the dispute, which had led to communal tensions and violence in the past.

Admin