SC to fix schedule of hearing of Ayodhya land dispute cases in January next year

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday fixed the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute cases for the first week of January next year before an appropriate bench, which will decide the schedule of hearing.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said the appropriate bench will decide the future course of hearing in January next year on the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case.

“We will fix the date of hearing of the Ayodhya dispute case before the appropriate bench in January,” the bench, which also comprised Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, said.

Earlier, a three judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

An apex court bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence, adding that the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

The bench had fixed the batch of appeals for final hearing today.

As many as 14 appeals have been filed against the high court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya dispute: SC likely to hear pleas against HC verdict on Monday


New Delhi:
The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph would hear the appeals filed in the matter.

On September 27, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict. 

However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration.

The court had on September 27 said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on October 29.

The issue whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s verdict.

The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

SC to fix schedule of hearing of Ayodhya land dispute cases in January next year


New Delhi: 
The Supreme Court on Monday fixed the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute cases for the first week of January next year before an appropriate bench, which will decide the schedule of hearing.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said the appropriate bench will decide the future course of hearing in January next year on the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case.

“We will fix the date of hearing of the Ayodhya dispute case before the appropriate bench in January,” the bench, which also comprised Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, said.

Earlier, a three judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

An apex court bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence, adding that the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

The bench had fixed the batch of appeals for final hearing today.

As many as 14 appeals have been filed against the high court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Supreme court admits plea against Ayodhya verdict

The Supreme Court Monday admitted a petition by the Akhil Bhartiya Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Punarudhar Samiti challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Babri Masjid case.

An apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.M. Lodha, while admitting the petition, tagged it with the main case.

The Sunni Waqf Board, which opposed the plea, said the Ram Janmabhoomi Punarudhar Samiti was not a party before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court that had pronounced the Ayodhya verdict Sep 30, 2010.

The court said it will keep open the objection raised by the Sunni Waqf Board and consider it when it takes up the hearing.

The high court’s verdict last year had directed that the disputed site be divided in three parts between the three contending parties. The Supreme Court May 9, 2011 stayed the verdict, describing it as ‘strange and surprising’.

Sunni Waqf board files appeal on Ayodhya in Supreme Court

 The Sunni Central Waqf Board Tuesday filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court for setting aside the Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.

‘Our appeal on behalf of Sunni Waqf Board was filed today,’ Zafaryab Jilani, the board’s lawyer, told reporters here.

A three-judge special bench of the Allahabad High Court Sep 30 ordered the division of the disputed land in Ayodhya into three equal parts – one for Ram Lalla, one for Hindu sect Nirmohi Akhara and one for the Sunni Central Waqf Board.

Jilani said the board’s plea to the court was that the ‘building in dispute is a mosque and its possession be delivered to Muslims’.

He added that the grounds for the plea was that the ‘high court has committed a manifest error in holding that the building be treated as a place of birth of Lord Ram’.

‘We have challenged that the suit should not be decided on the belief and faith of one community.’

The high court bench, in a majority ruling, had said the disputed site was indeed the birthplace of Hindu god Ram and the Babri mosque was built after razing a temple at the spot