Ayodhya verdict: Allahabad High Court judgement released

Ayodhya verdict: Disputed land to be divided into 3 parts.

Allahabad High Court News Updates! The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, and the party for 'Ram Lalla', said lawyers.

The site of the Ram lala idol to Lord Ram, Nirmohi Akhara gets gets Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara and Sunni Wakf Board gets the rest. Status-quo has to be maintained for three months, says BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad.

More details are awaited.

The bench comprised of Justices D V Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and S U Khan. The only hurdle in the pronouncement of the verdict was cleared by the Supreme Court Tuesday when it dismissed the petition by a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi for deferment of the keenly-awaited judgement.

The first title suit in the case was filed in 1950 by one Gopal Singh Visharad, seeking an injunction for permitting 'pooja'(worship) of Lord Ram at the disputed site while the second suit was filed by Paramhans Ramchandra Das also in 1950 seeking the same injunction but this was later withdrawn.

The third suit was filed in 1959 by the Nirmohi Akhara, seeking direction to hand over the charge of the disputed site from the receiver and the fourth one came in 1961 by UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs for declaration and possession of the site.

The fifth suit was moved on July one, 1989 in the name of Bhagwan Shri Ram Lalla Virajman also for declaration and possession.

Through an application moved by then Advocate General of UP, all the four suits were transferred to the High Court in 1989.

As many as 94 witnesses have appeared before the Court -- 58 from Hindu side and 36 from Muslim side -- during regular hearings of the case which began on January 10, 2010.

The High Court, while adjudicating the case, also asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carry out excavation in the area surrounding the disputed site to find out whether temple was there before mosque was built.

The excavation, which was done in the presence of representatives from Hindus and Muslims, went on for more than five months between March and August in 2003.

Hearing in the case taken up on a day-to-day basis from January this year was completed on July 26 and the special bench had reserved its verdict asking the parties concerned to approach the OSD in case there was any scope of resolution to the case through reconciliation.

Since none of the parties made any attempt in this direction, the court had on September 8 fixed September 24 as the date for pronouncement of the verdict. It was fixed for September 30 after the apex court dismissed a plea for deferment of the High Court verdict

The history of the dispute goes back to the year 1528 when a mosque was built on the site by Mughal emperor Babar which Hindus claim to be a birth place of Lord Ram and where a temple was there earlier.

In order to settle the dispute, the British officials in 1859 erected a fence to separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer court by Hindus and this system went on till 1949 when an idol of Lord Ram surfaced inside the mosque.

The authorities then declared the premises a disputed area and locked the gates which were unlocked after 37 years by a District Judge in 1986 to allow 'darshan'.

With the passage of time, the dispute took political colour. The was demolished in 1992 in the presence of senior leaders of VHP, Shiv Sena and BJP.

The demolition of the mosque triggered communal riots in several parts of the country in which more than 2,000 lives were lost.

Earlier this month, R C Tripathi, one of the parties to the suit, moved a plea in the High Court seeking deferment of the verdict to make fresh attempts for an out-of-court settlement through negotiations.

On September 17, the High Court refused to defer pronouncement of the verdict following which the matter reached the Supreme Court.

An apex court bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and A K Patnaik refused to take up the case and referred it to another bench.

Difference of opinion between two Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale, before whom the matter came up for hearing on September 23, surfaced on entertaining the petition. However, the court issued notices to the parties.

The matter was finally head by a special three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia om Tuesday and it dismissed the plea for deferment of the verdict by the High Court.

Ayodhya verdict: Sunni Waqf Board to appeal in Supreme Court

The Sunni Waqf Board says it will appeal in the Supreme Court against the Ayodhya verdict delivered today in Lucknow.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the disputed land should be divided three ways. The land has been divided between the Hindus and the Muslims (one-third for the Waqf Board, a third for Ram Lalla, and a third for the Nirmohi Akhara).

The Waqf board - one of the main litigants - says it doesn't agree with the decision.

The judgement says that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram and that the portion below the central dome under which idols are placed is allotted to Hindus.

Ayodhya verdict: Allahabad High Court judgement soon

Ayodhya verdict : nearly 3000 people detained in Mumbai.

Ayodhya verdict Flash News Updates! Sixty years after it first went to court, there shall be a verdict in the Ayodhya title suit soon. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma, have started proceedings to pronounce the judgement.

The litigants have reached Court No. 21 of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Barricades have been erected about 100 metres from the courtroom and no one other than those connected with the case are being allowed anywhere near the it.

The verdict in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute will decide whether the 2.7 acres of disputed land on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni Central Waqf Board or to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.

It has been a protracted legal battle, and people across the country have spoken in one voice on the need to maintain peace and harmony irrespective of the verdict.

The Ayodhya dispute at a glance;

• The verdict to be delivered in Lucknow today considers a dispute over 2.7 acres of land in Ayodhya.
• The dispute was first taken to court 60 years ago
• There are four title suits that ask the court to decide on:
• ownership of the land
• whether there was a temple at the site before 1538
• did the idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman exist inside the mosque, or were the idols placed inside on 22 December, 1949?

There was communal tension when an idol of Lord Ram was found inside in December 1949, and the government confiscated the site. That is when the lawsuits began.

• The Ramjanmabhoomi Trust holds that this land is the birthplace of Lord Ram
• The Waqf Board holds that the land was site of the 16th century Babri mosque
• In December 1992, thousands of kar sevaks, led by BJP and RSS leaders, demolished the Babri Masjid.

Relief claimed:

1. That Hindu's be entitled to go to visit the dispute site and worship the idols there without any checks or obstructions.
2. Prohibitory orders must be issued preventing anyone from removing the idols and closing the doors of the masjid.
3. Nirmohi Akhada - case filed on December 17, 1959. The case was filed by the Akhada through Mahant Ragunath Das, who is now dead.

Relief claimed:

1. To give the management of the disputed site to the descendents of Mahant Ragunath Das, the Mahant of the Nirmohi Akhada.
2. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP - case filed on December 18, 1961 by the Central Board of Waqfs, UP, through secretary and nine others.

Relief claimed:

1. That the disputed site must be declared as a mosque and the area adjoining as a Muslim graveyard.
2. That possession be given to the central board of waqfs.
3. On behalf of deity Lord Ram and Deoki Nandan Agarwal - case filed on July 1, 1989. Deoki Nandan Agarwal is a senior advocate and a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court.

Relief Claimed:

1. That the disputed structure belongs to the deity Lord Ram.
2. Injunction against the Waqf board preventing them from interfering in the building of the temple.
3. Demolishing the existing structure of the Babri Masjid. (This was filed before the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992)

Security measures:

• 1,90,000 security personnel in Uttar Pradesh
• 19 places have been identified as "sensitive."
• Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have been identified as trouble-prone.
• Central forces would be 10 minutes away and on call with extensive deployment near sensitive spots.
• India Air Force aircraft would be on standby to transport troops to eight places across the country.
• Ban on bulk SMSes continues.
• No pillion riders and parking not allowed near restricted sites in Delhi, Hyderabad.

(With PTI inputs)

Read more >>

Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya

Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya title suits today.

Ayodhya News Updates! Tight security across the country amid appeals for peace.

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and Kerala are some of the states for which New Delhi has instructed "extra vigil" as it believes the judgment can evoke sharp reactions there

Tens of thousands of security personnel were posted across India ahead of the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya title suits on Thursday afternoon. From Kashmir to Kerala, many states were on “extra vigil” fearing trouble in the aftermath of the judgement.

“We are monitoring the situation minute—by—minute,” an official in the Home Ministry said, “So far satisfactory. We hope the situation will remain peaceful after the judgment too.”

A three—member bench of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court will deliver the much—awaited verdict in the Ramjanmabhoomi—Babri Masjid title suits, contested by Hindu and Muslim groups, at 3.30 p.m. Thursday.

The official said Uttar Pradesh will be the focus of security action Thursday.

Tight measures are in force in Ayodhya, the location of the dispute, and in Lucknow, where the court verdict is delivered. Unprecedented security measures are in place inside and outside the court.

Delhi is under a security blanket too, for the Commonwealth Games beginning Sunday as well as Thursday’s verdict. A large number of police and paramilitary forces have taken up position on the roads, markets and public places.

The temple towns of Varanasi and Mathura, communally—sensitive centres like Meerut, Aligarh, Moradabad, Rampur, Bareilly, Kanpur, Allahabad, Azamgarh, Gorakhpur and other places in Uttar Pradesh have been placed under tight security, police sources said.

In all, 190,000 police and security personnel will be deployed in Uttar Pradesh. Of these, 20,000 will be central forces including the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Rapid Action Force (RAF).

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and Kerala are some of the states for which New Delhi has instructed “extra vigil” as it believes the judgment can evoke sharp reactions there.

A special alert has been sounded for cities with a history of communal flare-up. They include Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Bhiwandi, Bhopal, Jammu, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Coimbatore and Kozhikode, officials said.

In an appeal publicised through media, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Wednesday said: “It is necessary for all sections of the people of India to maintain equanimity and tranquillity in the aftermath of the judgment.

“There should be no attempt whatsoever made by any section of the people to provoke any other section or to indulge in any expression of emotion that would hurt the feelings of other people,” he said.

The six—decade—old title suit is regarding the site in Ayodhya which Hindu groups claim is the birthplace of Lord Ram. Radical Hindu activists razed the Babri Masjid there Dec 6, 1992, triggering widespread communal riots in which 2,000 people were killed across India.

Home Minister P. Chidambaram said Wednesday the government had “taken adequate security measures and deployed adequate security personnel to assist the state governments to maintain peace”.

We are updating News on Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya.

Stay online for Allahabad High Court Results on Ayodhya case.