Ayodhya reconciliation should be within legal framework: RSS
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Ayodhya-reconciliation-should-be-within-legal-framework-RSS/articleshow/6686485.cms
JAIPUR: Stating that the RSS will not be a party to the Ayodhya case if it comes to the Supreme Court, its general secretary Suresh Joshi on Monday said that any reconciliation process in the case should take place within a legal framework. He was responding to questions on All India Muslim Personal Law Board's statement of challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the apex court. He said his organisation would not become a party to the case unless the apex court issues notice to it.
"Sangh was never directly involved in the legal battle," said Joshi. He, however, said the RSS had always guided the concerned parties and will continue to guide the bodies if the matter goes to the Supreme Court. Joshi was in the city to address the state-level conference of Adarsh Vidya Mandir schools in the state.
"If the concerned parties feel that injustice had been meted out to them, they can initiate reconciliation," he said. When asked whether RSS will approach the concerned parties to initiate reconciliation process, he said: "The concerned parties are independent of approaching each other but they should remember that reconciliation should take place within a legal framework."
Refuting the statements of Muslim bodies and some intellectuals who claimed that verdict is motivated by faith, he said that those who disagreed with the judgment can go to Supreme Court. "Expressing discontent on a legal judgment publicly is unlikely in the democratic set up," said Joshi.
On this issue, RSS will take its final stand in its working committee meeting scheduled for the last week of October in Jalgoan. "There are many issues lined up for discussion but the main issue which will be discussed in the meeting is the verdict," added Joshi.
Following the line of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, who immediately after the judgment said, The verdict shouldn't be seen in the light of victory and defeat," he said RSS is a reponsible organisation and it is neither encouraging anybody to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court nor provoking anybody to do the same.
He, however, said that the verdict has paved the way for temple. RSS is closely monitoring the daily developments on the issue. He claimed that the ASI report had turned the tables in favour of Hindus. "The report had proved the existence of Lord Ram temple years before the mosque was built," Joshi said.
People, who are unhappy with the verdict, are questioning the evidence collected by the ASI. "How can they raise questions on the ASI report. The excavations took place by court order and members of both the parties were there during the whole operation," Joshi added.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Rahul was politicking in educational institutions: ABVP
Rahul was politicking in educational institutions: ABVP
IBN live.. PTI | 03:10 PM,Oct 05,2010
Bhopal, Oct 5 (PTI) A day ahead of Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi's visit to the state capital, ABVP today castigated him for going to educational institutes, and asked him to spell his stance over commercialisation of higher education. "Rahul was politicking in educational institutes across the country. He is asking students to join Congress, instead of expressing his views and stance over the commercialisation of higher education," ABVP General Secretary V D Sharma told reporters here. "The fat fees in higher educational institutions, especially in private institutes, were out of the reach of the middle class and poor students," Sharma said adding that Rahul should speak on this issue. The ABVP general secretary said that parents find it difficult to pay heavy fees and some of the students have committed suicides after failing to carry on their studies. "Commercialisation of higher education was the biggest problem and Rahul should speak on it," he said. Rahul who is going to colleges should also express his view on the students' union elections, Sharma said. Though the Supreme Court had expressed its concern over the commercialisation of higher education in 2005, the UPA government hasn't yet come out with a central legislation to check fat fees being charged by colleges and universities across the country, he added.
IBN live.. PTI | 03:10 PM,Oct 05,2010
Bhopal, Oct 5 (PTI) A day ahead of Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi's visit to the state capital, ABVP today castigated him for going to educational institutes, and asked him to spell his stance over commercialisation of higher education. "Rahul was politicking in educational institutes across the country. He is asking students to join Congress, instead of expressing his views and stance over the commercialisation of higher education," ABVP General Secretary V D Sharma told reporters here. "The fat fees in higher educational institutions, especially in private institutes, were out of the reach of the middle class and poor students," Sharma said adding that Rahul should speak on this issue. The ABVP general secretary said that parents find it difficult to pay heavy fees and some of the students have committed suicides after failing to carry on their studies. "Commercialisation of higher education was the biggest problem and Rahul should speak on it," he said. Rahul who is going to colleges should also express his view on the students' union elections, Sharma said. Though the Supreme Court had expressed its concern over the commercialisation of higher education in 2005, the UPA government hasn't yet come out with a central legislation to check fat fees being charged by colleges and universities across the country, he added.
If RSS is SIMI, then Rahul is immature, unruly: BJP
New Delhi:
Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi came under the direct line of fire of the Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday evening after he said earlier in the day that the RSS was no different from banned Muslim organisation Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) – both of which he considered “fanatical” and “fundamentalist”.
Closely associated with the RSS, the BJP was caustic in its retaliation, stating that the young leader seems to have lost his mental balance and shown political immaturity by his comments.
BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar said: "Only a sick mind can do it (compare RSS to SIMI). He seems to have lost his mental balance. RSS is an institution of nationalist thought while SIMI has been banned by their (Congress) government. We banned it too when in power."
Gandhi had said in Bhopal that RSS was a "fanatical" organisation and was as fundamentalist as the SIMI, a banned student organisation involved in terror activities.
His comments against the RSS, the Sangh founthead which controls the BJP, seems to have rattled the party. Javadekar said, "The Congress knows it is not winning in Madhya Pradesh. I can understand its frustration. The Congress has been losing elections of late. The NSUI lost the students' union elections in Delhi, the party also lost by-elections in several states. Rahul Gandhi's magic is not working for the Congress."
He insisted the RSS had served the nation during crises in the past and its contribution to the country was immense.
"Rahul Gandhi has shown political immaturity and engaged in unruly behaviour," Javadekar said.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/If-RSS-is-SIMI--then-Rahul-is-immature--unruly--BJP/693527
Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi came under the direct line of fire of the Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday evening after he said earlier in the day that the RSS was no different from banned Muslim organisation Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) – both of which he considered “fanatical” and “fundamentalist”.
Closely associated with the RSS, the BJP was caustic in its retaliation, stating that the young leader seems to have lost his mental balance and shown political immaturity by his comments.
BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar said: "Only a sick mind can do it (compare RSS to SIMI). He seems to have lost his mental balance. RSS is an institution of nationalist thought while SIMI has been banned by their (Congress) government. We banned it too when in power."
Gandhi had said in Bhopal that RSS was a "fanatical" organisation and was as fundamentalist as the SIMI, a banned student organisation involved in terror activities.
His comments against the RSS, the Sangh founthead which controls the BJP, seems to have rattled the party. Javadekar said, "The Congress knows it is not winning in Madhya Pradesh. I can understand its frustration. The Congress has been losing elections of late. The NSUI lost the students' union elections in Delhi, the party also lost by-elections in several states. Rahul Gandhi's magic is not working for the Congress."
He insisted the RSS had served the nation during crises in the past and its contribution to the country was immense.
"Rahul Gandhi has shown political immaturity and engaged in unruly behaviour," Javadekar said.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/If-RSS-is-SIMI--then-Rahul-is-immature--unruly--BJP/693527
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
No more varsities in Vani Vihar campus: ABVP
No more varsities in Vani Vihar campus: ABVP
Bhubaneswar(visakeo)Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad( ABVP) has strongly protested the move of the State Government to set up the proposed Open University in Utkal University campus in Vanivihar here. By this myopic measure decision of the Government the glory, prestige and progress of the varsity will be tarnished.
The progress, excellence of different educational departments, introduction of new time-relevant subjects has identified this as a prominent university nationally. Today there is not enough land for hostels, lecturers’ quarter, play ground, new departments, and different development programmes. Thousands acres of land is being given to private universities as compensation package, but isn’t it the responsibility of the Government to provide 50 acres of land near the city for the Government institution,-questioned ABVP. Therefore the Government should plan for the next 50 years. It must consider another place instead of Utkal University because in the next 10 years half of Odisha’s population will be in the age group of 18 to 25. Keeping their educational career in view the Government must plan. “If the University land is misused the student community will intensify a State wide agitation,” warned State secretary Sanjaya Dash
Bhubaneswar(visakeo)Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad( ABVP) has strongly protested the move of the State Government to set up the proposed Open University in Utkal University campus in Vanivihar here. By this myopic measure decision of the Government the glory, prestige and progress of the varsity will be tarnished.
The progress, excellence of different educational departments, introduction of new time-relevant subjects has identified this as a prominent university nationally. Today there is not enough land for hostels, lecturers’ quarter, play ground, new departments, and different development programmes. Thousands acres of land is being given to private universities as compensation package, but isn’t it the responsibility of the Government to provide 50 acres of land near the city for the Government institution,-questioned ABVP. Therefore the Government should plan for the next 50 years. It must consider another place instead of Utkal University because in the next 10 years half of Odisha’s population will be in the age group of 18 to 25. Keeping their educational career in view the Government must plan. “If the University land is misused the student community will intensify a State wide agitation,” warned State secretary Sanjaya Dash
Ramlila with a modern message
Ramlila with a modern message
October 05, 2010 9:09:22 PM
Purusharth Aradhak | New Delhi
With the recent spurt in “honour killing” cases, one of the city Ramlilas is all set to focus on the issue this year. The ballet, according to Shri Ramlila Committee in East Delhi, has been researched at the Banaras Hindu University.
“The intention is to spread awareness against ‘honour killing’, which has affected the society in general. Ramlila is staged every year to keep our moral values intact. Our Ramlila will spread the message that ‘honour killing’ leads to destruction of families,” Shri Ramlila Committee (IP Extn, Patparganj) president Suresh Bindal said.
He added: “Ravan’s sister Surpanakha fell in love with Vidhujiah, who was a general of emperor Kaliket. From the beginning, Ravana was opposed to the relationship. During a heated argument between Ravan and his sister, the king called Vidhujiah and humiliated him, saying Surpanakha belonged to an elite family while he was just a general. Ravan ordered Vidhujiah to either forget Surpanakha or leave the country. But full of pride and self-esteem, Vidhujiah did not obey Ravan and was killed.”
On how the organisers hit upon this idea, Bindal said it was a topical subject since a number of “honour killing” cases had occurred in north India in the recent past. “After giving it a lot of thought, the committee decided to stage a proper show, for which research has been conducted at BHU. A book based on the research has already been published by a leading publishing house,” he added.
According to the Ramlila organisers, the reason for adding the Surpanakha episode to the ballet was just to show that those who commit atrocities like “honour killing” have to face destruction of their families. Surpanakha is one of the most important characters in the Ramayana. “In fact, Valmiki comes close to claiming that had there been no Kaikeyi and no Surpanakha, there would have been no war with Ravan and no Ramayana.
In fact, Surpanakha was the trigger that set into motion the chain of events leading to Ravan’s destruction,” they added.
The participating artistes are from NSD and Delhi Rang Mach. The dance presentation will be based on Chhau, a genre of Indian tribal martial dance popular in Bengal, Jharkhand and Odisha.
Several cases of “honour killing” were reported earlier this year. In most of these cases, it was either the girl or the boy from high-profile and upper middle class families who fell victim to their own family members. Several young lives were snuffed out after the lovers eloped or married for love. Such cases were reported not only from faraway villages, but also from metro cities, including Delhi. The khap panchayats have taken a serious view of the issue and deliberations are continuing on how to end this social menace.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287792/Ramlila-with-a-modern-message.html
October 05, 2010 9:09:22 PM
Purusharth Aradhak | New Delhi
With the recent spurt in “honour killing” cases, one of the city Ramlilas is all set to focus on the issue this year. The ballet, according to Shri Ramlila Committee in East Delhi, has been researched at the Banaras Hindu University.
“The intention is to spread awareness against ‘honour killing’, which has affected the society in general. Ramlila is staged every year to keep our moral values intact. Our Ramlila will spread the message that ‘honour killing’ leads to destruction of families,” Shri Ramlila Committee (IP Extn, Patparganj) president Suresh Bindal said.
He added: “Ravan’s sister Surpanakha fell in love with Vidhujiah, who was a general of emperor Kaliket. From the beginning, Ravana was opposed to the relationship. During a heated argument between Ravan and his sister, the king called Vidhujiah and humiliated him, saying Surpanakha belonged to an elite family while he was just a general. Ravan ordered Vidhujiah to either forget Surpanakha or leave the country. But full of pride and self-esteem, Vidhujiah did not obey Ravan and was killed.”
On how the organisers hit upon this idea, Bindal said it was a topical subject since a number of “honour killing” cases had occurred in north India in the recent past. “After giving it a lot of thought, the committee decided to stage a proper show, for which research has been conducted at BHU. A book based on the research has already been published by a leading publishing house,” he added.
According to the Ramlila organisers, the reason for adding the Surpanakha episode to the ballet was just to show that those who commit atrocities like “honour killing” have to face destruction of their families. Surpanakha is one of the most important characters in the Ramayana. “In fact, Valmiki comes close to claiming that had there been no Kaikeyi and no Surpanakha, there would have been no war with Ravan and no Ramayana.
In fact, Surpanakha was the trigger that set into motion the chain of events leading to Ravan’s destruction,” they added.
The participating artistes are from NSD and Delhi Rang Mach. The dance presentation will be based on Chhau, a genre of Indian tribal martial dance popular in Bengal, Jharkhand and Odisha.
Several cases of “honour killing” were reported earlier this year. In most of these cases, it was either the girl or the boy from high-profile and upper middle class families who fell victim to their own family members. Several young lives were snuffed out after the lovers eloped or married for love. Such cases were reported not only from faraway villages, but also from metro cities, including Delhi. The khap panchayats have taken a serious view of the issue and deliberations are continuing on how to end this social menace.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287792/Ramlila-with-a-modern-message.html
Cong to work for out-of-court deal
Cong to work for out-of-court deal
October 05, 2010 9:08:11 PM
Kumar Shakti Shekhar | New Delhi
Though it had been favouring the course of reconciliation in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, the Congress has decided to take concrete steps towards ensuring an out-of-court settlement in the wake of the Allahabad High Court verdict.
According to sources, the Congress leadership has decided to utilise the three-month status quo period — as granted by the Allahabad High Court — to press for a reconciliation. The Congress Steering Committee, which is scheduled to meet here on Tuesday, is likely to discuss the Ayodhya verdict. However, the party’s proposed line of action and initiatives in this regard have not been ascertained yet. “The party has to decide the kind of initiatives it has to take in this direction,” a senior Congress leader said.
A day after the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, AICC general secretary in charge of Uttar Pradesh Digvijay Singh had said his party favoured a negotiated settlement to the Ayodhya issue. “All right-thinking people should work for a compromise within the next three months following the Allahabad High Court verdict,” he had added. “Not only the Government, but all right-thinking people should try for a negotiated settlement. Even the Congress would try from its side,” he had said.
On Monday, Congress spokesperson Jayanti Natarajan, said, “The Congress took a strong stand that the issue should be settled by reconciliation. It is part of the judicial process which will culminate in the Supreme Court.”
Sources said that both Natarajan and Singh were echoing the decision taken at the party’s highest level after the verdict came out. More so since the senior Congress leaders felt that parties like the BJP, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Samajwadi Party (SP) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) would milk the political and electoral gains in the wake of the judgement.
Senior Cong-ress leaders said the party wanted to do a balancing act at this stage. While not antagonising the majority Hindu votes, it also wanted to win back the trust of Muslims. By taking initiatives for reconciliation, the Congress would like to be seen to please both the sections, they said.
After the verdict, the party is apprehensive of a shift in its Muslim vote bank. Senior party leaders had been airing this view in private. But Singh, when asked whether the Muslims were angry with the Congress after the judgement, said, “I do not look at it politically. No one should do politics with such a sensitive issue. I do not see it in terms of political gains or losses.”
Sources said the Congress was making a last-ditch effort at reconciliation after the verdict. “It is a giving a big push to reconciliation since the party believes that it remains the first priority,” one of the leaders said.
The Ayodhya verdict is expected to be discussed by the Congress Steering Committee, which is scheduled to meet here on Tuesday. After the re-election of Sonia Gandhi on September 3 as the Congress president, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) got dissolved and its members are now part of the Steering Committee till the time a new CWC is elected.
The meeting is the first after the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suits on September 30. This will also be the first meeting of the top Congress body after the CWC was converted into a steering committee following Sonia Gandhi’s re-election as party president just a month ago, party sources said.
The meeting is also expected to discuss national issues like the Kashmir situation, and finalise a date for the Congress plenary session, they added.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287798/Cong-to-work-for-out-of-court-deal.html
October 05, 2010 9:08:11 PM
Kumar Shakti Shekhar | New Delhi
Though it had been favouring the course of reconciliation in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, the Congress has decided to take concrete steps towards ensuring an out-of-court settlement in the wake of the Allahabad High Court verdict.
According to sources, the Congress leadership has decided to utilise the three-month status quo period — as granted by the Allahabad High Court — to press for a reconciliation. The Congress Steering Committee, which is scheduled to meet here on Tuesday, is likely to discuss the Ayodhya verdict. However, the party’s proposed line of action and initiatives in this regard have not been ascertained yet. “The party has to decide the kind of initiatives it has to take in this direction,” a senior Congress leader said.
A day after the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, AICC general secretary in charge of Uttar Pradesh Digvijay Singh had said his party favoured a negotiated settlement to the Ayodhya issue. “All right-thinking people should work for a compromise within the next three months following the Allahabad High Court verdict,” he had added. “Not only the Government, but all right-thinking people should try for a negotiated settlement. Even the Congress would try from its side,” he had said.
On Monday, Congress spokesperson Jayanti Natarajan, said, “The Congress took a strong stand that the issue should be settled by reconciliation. It is part of the judicial process which will culminate in the Supreme Court.”
Sources said that both Natarajan and Singh were echoing the decision taken at the party’s highest level after the verdict came out. More so since the senior Congress leaders felt that parties like the BJP, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Samajwadi Party (SP) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) would milk the political and electoral gains in the wake of the judgement.
Senior Cong-ress leaders said the party wanted to do a balancing act at this stage. While not antagonising the majority Hindu votes, it also wanted to win back the trust of Muslims. By taking initiatives for reconciliation, the Congress would like to be seen to please both the sections, they said.
After the verdict, the party is apprehensive of a shift in its Muslim vote bank. Senior party leaders had been airing this view in private. But Singh, when asked whether the Muslims were angry with the Congress after the judgement, said, “I do not look at it politically. No one should do politics with such a sensitive issue. I do not see it in terms of political gains or losses.”
Sources said the Congress was making a last-ditch effort at reconciliation after the verdict. “It is a giving a big push to reconciliation since the party believes that it remains the first priority,” one of the leaders said.
The Ayodhya verdict is expected to be discussed by the Congress Steering Committee, which is scheduled to meet here on Tuesday. After the re-election of Sonia Gandhi on September 3 as the Congress president, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) got dissolved and its members are now part of the Steering Committee till the time a new CWC is elected.
The meeting is the first after the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suits on September 30. This will also be the first meeting of the top Congress body after the CWC was converted into a steering committee following Sonia Gandhi’s re-election as party president just a month ago, party sources said.
The meeting is also expected to discuss national issues like the Kashmir situation, and finalise a date for the Congress plenary session, they added.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287798/Cong-to-work-for-out-of-court-deal.html
Shooters, wrestlers make it a golden day for India
Shooters, wrestlers make it a golden day for India
October 05, 2010 9:07:11 PM
IANS | NEW DELHI
Indian shooters on Tuesday led the medal hunt at the Delhi Commonwealth Games winning two gold and two silver while wrestlers brought up the third, fourth and fifth golds on the second day of the Games here.
At 1900 IST India stands second in the overall medals tally behind Australia.
Olympic Champion Abhinav Bindra and world number 3 Gagan Narang were bang on target in the 10 mtre air rifle pairs to give India its first gold in the 19th edition of the Games.
They together shot 1193 points seeting a Games record. The two beat own record of 1189 points set in the 2006 Melbourne Games. Bindra shot 595 points and Narang 598, two short of his world record of 600 points.
The women's pair of Rahi Sarnobat and Anisa Sayyed gave the second gold with their sterling performance in the 25m pistol pairs event with a championship record of 1156 points.
Wrestlers Anil Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Ravinder Singh bagged golds winning the 96kg, 74kg and 60 kg Greco-Roman category respectively.
The two silver medals were won by Deepak Sharma and Omkar Singh, in the men's 50m pistol pairs event, and Tejaswini Sawant and Lajja Gauswami the women's pairs 50m rifle 3 position.
On their way to silver Rahi scored 584 points and Anisa 572 and broke the record of 1,150 set by Australians Lalita Yauhleuskaya and Linda Ryan at the Manchester Games in 2002.
In the men's 50 m pistol event Omkar Singh contributed 548 points and Deepak Sharma 539 to finish second and win the silver.
Gagan shot an outstanding sequence of 99, 100, 100, 99, 100 and 100 for a total of 598, two points less than the perfect score of 600 that he shot in the World Cup final in 2008.
The Hyderabad man had a perfect score in his second, third, fifth and sixth series and faltered in his first and fourth sequence.
Abhinav shot a spectacular series of 100, 98, 99, 100, 99 and 99 for a tally of 595. He had just two perfect series in the first and fourth, but made up with his tactical brilliance.
Abhinav was the first to end his events and maintained a poker face. Minutes later when Gagan finished his events he punched in the air and waved at the crowd as India sealed the gold.
The silence at the 10 metre range was finally broken. Officials had to silence the crowd that erupted in cheers as other shooters were yet to finish their rounds. But by then India had opened up a huge lead ahead of England and Bangladesh, who battled for the second spot. Eventually, England took the second place.
An elated Bindra said it was his "best moment" since winning the yellow metal in the Beijing Olympics.
"This is my best moment since Beijing. It is always special to win a medal for the country. And this is the first time I am competing in a such a big event on Indian soil," Bindra, who was also the country's flag bearer at the opening ceremony, said soon after the pair's sterling show.
National coach Sunny Thomas said the gold rush for India had just begun. "This is just the start and shooters will win a lot of medals this time too," he said.
Indians continued to move up in tennis and swimming. Games top seed Somdev Devvarman cruised into the second round of the men's singles tennis with a 6-4, 6-2 victory over Devin Mullings of the Bahamas.
In swimming Veerdhawal Khade and Sandeep Sejwal qualified for the semi-finals of the 50-metre butterfly and 100-metre breast-stroke events.
Khade clocked 24.72 seconds and came eighth among the 16 swimmers who qualified from the heats for the semi-finals.
Sejwal clocked 1:02.72 seconds and stood ninth among the qualifiers.
The semi-finals will be held in the evening.
In para sport, the Indian trio of Kiran Tak, Anjani Patel and Vineeta Pathak finished seventh, eight and ninth respectively to enter the finals of the women's para sport 50m freestyle.
Kiran was the most impressive of the three as she clocked 38.79 seconds, followed by Anjani (47.64) and Vineeta (52.58).
India had won four medals -- two silver and two bronze--Monday.
October 05, 2010 9:07:11 PM
IANS | NEW DELHI
Indian shooters on Tuesday led the medal hunt at the Delhi Commonwealth Games winning two gold and two silver while wrestlers brought up the third, fourth and fifth golds on the second day of the Games here.
At 1900 IST India stands second in the overall medals tally behind Australia.
Olympic Champion Abhinav Bindra and world number 3 Gagan Narang were bang on target in the 10 mtre air rifle pairs to give India its first gold in the 19th edition of the Games.
They together shot 1193 points seeting a Games record. The two beat own record of 1189 points set in the 2006 Melbourne Games. Bindra shot 595 points and Narang 598, two short of his world record of 600 points.
The women's pair of Rahi Sarnobat and Anisa Sayyed gave the second gold with their sterling performance in the 25m pistol pairs event with a championship record of 1156 points.
Wrestlers Anil Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Ravinder Singh bagged golds winning the 96kg, 74kg and 60 kg Greco-Roman category respectively.
The two silver medals were won by Deepak Sharma and Omkar Singh, in the men's 50m pistol pairs event, and Tejaswini Sawant and Lajja Gauswami the women's pairs 50m rifle 3 position.
On their way to silver Rahi scored 584 points and Anisa 572 and broke the record of 1,150 set by Australians Lalita Yauhleuskaya and Linda Ryan at the Manchester Games in 2002.
In the men's 50 m pistol event Omkar Singh contributed 548 points and Deepak Sharma 539 to finish second and win the silver.
Gagan shot an outstanding sequence of 99, 100, 100, 99, 100 and 100 for a total of 598, two points less than the perfect score of 600 that he shot in the World Cup final in 2008.
The Hyderabad man had a perfect score in his second, third, fifth and sixth series and faltered in his first and fourth sequence.
Abhinav shot a spectacular series of 100, 98, 99, 100, 99 and 99 for a tally of 595. He had just two perfect series in the first and fourth, but made up with his tactical brilliance.
Abhinav was the first to end his events and maintained a poker face. Minutes later when Gagan finished his events he punched in the air and waved at the crowd as India sealed the gold.
The silence at the 10 metre range was finally broken. Officials had to silence the crowd that erupted in cheers as other shooters were yet to finish their rounds. But by then India had opened up a huge lead ahead of England and Bangladesh, who battled for the second spot. Eventually, England took the second place.
An elated Bindra said it was his "best moment" since winning the yellow metal in the Beijing Olympics.
"This is my best moment since Beijing. It is always special to win a medal for the country. And this is the first time I am competing in a such a big event on Indian soil," Bindra, who was also the country's flag bearer at the opening ceremony, said soon after the pair's sterling show.
National coach Sunny Thomas said the gold rush for India had just begun. "This is just the start and shooters will win a lot of medals this time too," he said.
Indians continued to move up in tennis and swimming. Games top seed Somdev Devvarman cruised into the second round of the men's singles tennis with a 6-4, 6-2 victory over Devin Mullings of the Bahamas.
In swimming Veerdhawal Khade and Sandeep Sejwal qualified for the semi-finals of the 50-metre butterfly and 100-metre breast-stroke events.
Khade clocked 24.72 seconds and came eighth among the 16 swimmers who qualified from the heats for the semi-finals.
Sejwal clocked 1:02.72 seconds and stood ninth among the qualifiers.
The semi-finals will be held in the evening.
In para sport, the Indian trio of Kiran Tak, Anjani Patel and Vineeta Pathak finished seventh, eight and ninth respectively to enter the finals of the women's para sport 50m freestyle.
Kiran was the most impressive of the three as she clocked 38.79 seconds, followed by Anjani (47.64) and Vineeta (52.58).
India had won four medals -- two silver and two bronze--Monday.
Ayodhya: Congress would welcome settlement but won’t negotiate
Ayodhya: Congress would welcome settlement but won’t negotiate
PTI
Ayodhya
In a balancing act, Congress on Tuesday said it would welcome efforts for a negotiated settlement of the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute but made it clear that the Allahabad High Court verdict does not condone the demolition of the mosque.
The Working Committee of the party, which has now been converted into a Steering Committee, on Tuesday met and discussed the issue threadbare in the wake of the verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court.
“The Indian National Congress respects the judicial process with regard to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.
“However, we must now await the final decision of the Supreme Court as and when the appeal is filed,” the party said releasing a document after a meeting of Congress Working Committee chaired by party President Sonia Gandhi.
Congress General Secretary Janardan Dwivedi told reporters that while the party would welcome any initiative for a peaceful solution to the problem through negotiations, it would not take any initiative on its own.
He declined to comment on the court verdict saying the party would not like to give any “value judgement” on it.
“It’s a High Court judgement and everyone should respect it,” he added. (MORE) PTI AMR The consensus in the meeting was that it was important to underline that the verdict in no way condones the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 which was a “shameful and criminal act for which the perpetrators must be brought to justice.”
The party was also of the view that any distortion of the verdict by communal forces was detrimental to the larger national interest and would cause harm to the nation’s mood and desire for peace and harmony.
The CWC’s response was in the backdrop of senior BJP leader L.K. Advani saying the court verdict vindicated his Rathyatra and that it was a case of faith upheld by law.
Sources said that a few party members attacked Mr. Advani and SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav for their reactions over Ayodhya verdict.
Home Minister P. Chidambaram, who briefed the CWC on the issue, also touched upon how the minorities have viewed the verdict.
Apart from Ms. Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a total of eleven party leaders including R.K. Dhawan, Satyavrat Chaturvedi and K. Keshava Rao as also Union Minister Ambika Soni participated in the deliberations on the Ayodhya issue as well as on the situation in Kashmir.
Party leader Rahul Gandhi, AICC General Secretaries Digvijay Singh, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Prithviraj Chavan, Defence Minister A.K. Antony and party veteran Arjun Singh could not make it to the meeting. While Arjun Singh is unwell, others were not present in Delhi.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article814687.ece?homepage=true
PTI
Ayodhya
In a balancing act, Congress on Tuesday said it would welcome efforts for a negotiated settlement of the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute but made it clear that the Allahabad High Court verdict does not condone the demolition of the mosque.
The Working Committee of the party, which has now been converted into a Steering Committee, on Tuesday met and discussed the issue threadbare in the wake of the verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court.
“The Indian National Congress respects the judicial process with regard to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.
“However, we must now await the final decision of the Supreme Court as and when the appeal is filed,” the party said releasing a document after a meeting of Congress Working Committee chaired by party President Sonia Gandhi.
Congress General Secretary Janardan Dwivedi told reporters that while the party would welcome any initiative for a peaceful solution to the problem through negotiations, it would not take any initiative on its own.
He declined to comment on the court verdict saying the party would not like to give any “value judgement” on it.
“It’s a High Court judgement and everyone should respect it,” he added. (MORE) PTI AMR The consensus in the meeting was that it was important to underline that the verdict in no way condones the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 which was a “shameful and criminal act for which the perpetrators must be brought to justice.”
The party was also of the view that any distortion of the verdict by communal forces was detrimental to the larger national interest and would cause harm to the nation’s mood and desire for peace and harmony.
The CWC’s response was in the backdrop of senior BJP leader L.K. Advani saying the court verdict vindicated his Rathyatra and that it was a case of faith upheld by law.
Sources said that a few party members attacked Mr. Advani and SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav for their reactions over Ayodhya verdict.
Home Minister P. Chidambaram, who briefed the CWC on the issue, also touched upon how the minorities have viewed the verdict.
Apart from Ms. Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a total of eleven party leaders including R.K. Dhawan, Satyavrat Chaturvedi and K. Keshava Rao as also Union Minister Ambika Soni participated in the deliberations on the Ayodhya issue as well as on the situation in Kashmir.
Party leader Rahul Gandhi, AICC General Secretaries Digvijay Singh, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Prithviraj Chavan, Defence Minister A.K. Antony and party veteran Arjun Singh could not make it to the meeting. While Arjun Singh is unwell, others were not present in Delhi.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article814687.ece?homepage=true
Ayodhya verdict: Wakf Board to move
Ayodhya verdict: Wakf Board to move
Lucknow, Oct 5: One of the litigants in the Ayodhya title suit, Wakf Board on Oct 5 decided to challenge the Allahabad High Court's verdict by moving to the Supreme Court.
Buzz up!The Sunni Central Wakf Board denied all possibilities of out-of-court settlement on the disputed Ram janmabhoomi-Babri masjid title law suit.
"On the basis of the legal advise from experts, it was decided to challenge the verdict in the apex court," stated Wakf Board chairman, Zafar Ahmad Farooqui.
Though no exact date has been decided on moving the Supreme Court, informed Farooqui.
The Allahabad High Court on Sep 30 delivered the Ayodhya verdict, which decided that the land under the central dome of the demolished Babri Masjid is the Ram Janamsthan.
The verdict also stated the disputed land be divided into three parts, one-third to the party representing 'Ram Lala Virajman', one-third to Sunni Wakf Board and one-third to Nirmohi Akhara.
The High Court also dismissed the title suits of Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara and declared them to be time barred. The court also ruled that status quo be maintained for three months at the site in Ayodhya.
Lucknow, Oct 5: One of the litigants in the Ayodhya title suit, Wakf Board on Oct 5 decided to challenge the Allahabad High Court's verdict by moving to the Supreme Court.
Buzz up!The Sunni Central Wakf Board denied all possibilities of out-of-court settlement on the disputed Ram janmabhoomi-Babri masjid title law suit.
"On the basis of the legal advise from experts, it was decided to challenge the verdict in the apex court," stated Wakf Board chairman, Zafar Ahmad Farooqui.
Though no exact date has been decided on moving the Supreme Court, informed Farooqui.
The Allahabad High Court on Sep 30 delivered the Ayodhya verdict, which decided that the land under the central dome of the demolished Babri Masjid is the Ram Janamsthan.
The verdict also stated the disputed land be divided into three parts, one-third to the party representing 'Ram Lala Virajman', one-third to Sunni Wakf Board and one-third to Nirmohi Akhara.
The High Court also dismissed the title suits of Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara and declared them to be time barred. The court also ruled that status quo be maintained for three months at the site in Ayodhya.
अयोध्या और पाकिस्तान
अयोध्या और पाकिस्तान
हामिद मीर, इस्लामाबाद से
बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद के मामले में इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये फैसले पर किसी पाकिस्तानी मुसलमान के लिये निष्पक्ष टिप्पणी करना बेहद मुश्किल है. पाकिस्तान के अधिकांश मुसलमान मानते हैं कि यह ‘कानूनी’ नहीं ‘राजनीतिक’ फैसला है. फैसला आने के तुरंत बाद मैंने अपने टीवी शो ‘कैपिटल टॉक’ के फेस बुक पर आम पाकिस्तानी लोगों की राय जानने की कोशिश की.
बहुत से पाकिस्तानी इस फैसले से खुश नहीं थे लेकिन मैं एक टिप्पणी को लेकर चकित था, जिसमें कहा गया था कि “इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने भारतीय मुसलमानों को बचा लिया.” कुछ पाकिस्तानियों ने मुझे लिखा कि “यह उचित फैसला है.” इन ‘अल्पसंख्यक’ लेकिन महत्वपूर्ण टिप्पणियों ने मुझे एक भारतीय समाचार माध्यम के लिये लिखने को प्रेरित किया.
सबसे पहले तो मैं अपने भारतीय पाठकों को साफ करना चाहूंगा कि पाकिस्तानी मीडिया ने कभी भी इस फैसले को लेकर हिंदूओं के खिलाफ नफरत फैलाने की कोई कोशिश नहीं की. पाकिस्तान के सबसे बड़े निजी टेलीविजन चैनल जिओ टीवी पर इसका कवरेज बेहद संतुलित था. जिओ टीवी ने मुस्लिम जज जस्टिस एसयू खान के फैसले को प्रमुखता दी, जो हिंदू और मुस्लिम दोनों कौमों को अयोध्या की जमीन बराबरी से देने पर सहमत थे.
पाकिस्तानी मुसलमानों में अधिकांश सुन्नी बरेलवी विचारधारा के लोग हैं. सुन्नी बरेलवी मुसलमानों में सर्वाधिक सम्मानित विद्वान मुफ्ती मुन्नीबुर रहमान 30 सितंबर की रात 9 बजे के जीओ टीवी के न्यूज बुलेटिन में उपस्थित थे. उन्होंने फैसले पर अपनी राय देते हुये कहा कि इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय का यह फैसला राजनीतिक है लेकिन उन्होंने भारतीय मुसलमानों से अपील की कि “उन्हें अपनी भावनाओं पर काबू रखना चाहिये और इस्लाम के नाम पर किसी भी तरह की हिंसा से उन्हें दूर रहना चाहिये.”
मैं 1992 में बाबरी मस्ज़िद के गिराये जाने के बाद पाकिस्तान में हिंदू मंदिरों पर किये गये हमले को याद करता हूं. पाकिस्तान में चरमपंथी संगठनों ने उस त्रासदी का खूब फायदा उठाया. असल में चरमपंथी इस विवाद के सर्वाधिक लाभ उठाने वालों में थे, जो यह साबित करने की कोशिश में थे कि भारत के सभी हिंदू भारत के सभी मुसलमानों के दुश्मन हैं, जो सच नहीं था. 2001 तक बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद बहुत से लेखकों और पत्रकारों के लेखन का विषय था.
9/11 की घटना ने पूरी दुनिया को बदल दिया और पाकिस्तानी चरमपंथी गुटों की निगाहें भारत से मुड़कर अमरीका की ओर तन गईं. 2007 में पाकिस्तानी सेना द्वारा इस्लामाबाद के लाल मस्ज़िद पर किये गये हमले के बाद तो बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद का महत्व और भी कम हो गया. अधिकांश पाकिस्तानी मुसलमानों की सही या गलत राय थी कि अपदस्थ किये गये पाकिस्तान के मुख्य न्यायाधीश के पक्ष में वकीलों के आंदोलन से ध्यान हटाने के लिये यह परवेज मुशर्रफ द्वारा खुद ही रचा गया ड्रामा था. मुझे याद है कि 2007 में बहुत से मुस्लिम विद्वानों ने यह कहा था कि हम उन अतिवादी हिंदुओं की भर्त्सना करते हैं, जिन्होंने बाबरी मस्ज़िद पर हमला किया लेकिन अब पाकिस्तानी सेना द्वारा इस्लामाबाद में एक मस्ज़िद पर हमला किया गया है, तब हम क्या कहें ?
लाल मस्ज़िद ऑपरेशन ने पाकिस्तान में ज्यादा अतिवादिता फैलाई और वह एक नये दौर की शुरुवात थी. चरमपंथियों ने सुरक्षाबलों पर आत्मघाती हमले शुरु कर दिया और कुछ समय बाद तो वे उन सभी मस्ज़िदों पर भी हमला बोलने लगे, जहां सुरक्षा बल के अधिकारी नमाज पढ़ते थे. मैं यह स्वीकार करता हूं कि भारत में गैर मुसलमानों द्वारा जितने मस्ज़िद तोड़े गये होंगे, पाकिस्तान में उससे कहीं अधिक मस्ज़िदें तथाकथित मुसलमानों द्वारा तोड़ी गयीं.
मेरी राय में किसी भी पाकिस्तानी राजनीतिज्ञ या मजहबी गुट को बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद का फायदा उठाने की कोशिश नहीं करनी चाहिये. इस विवाद को भारत के मुसलमानों और हिंदुओं को पर छोड़ देना चाहिये, जो अपने कानूनी प्रक्रिया से इसे सुलझायेंगे. सुन्नी वक्फ़ बोर्ड फैसले से खुश नहीं है लेकिन ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के फैसले की पृष्ठभूमि में सुलह की उम्मीद देख रहा है. एक पाकिस्तानी के तौर पर हम क्या कर सकते हैं ?
मैं सोचता हूं कि बतौर पाकिस्तानी हमें अपने मुल्क के अल्पसंख्यकों को और अधिक कानूनी, राजनीतिक और नैतिक संरक्षण दें. सत्ता और विपक्ष में शामिल अपने कई मित्रों को मैंने पहले भी सुझाव दिया है कि हम पाकिस्तानी हिंदुओं, सिक्खों और इसाइयों के हितों का और ख्याल रखें. वो जितने मंदिर या चर्च बनाना चाहें, हम इसकी अनुमति उन्हें दें. हमें पाकिस्तान के ऐसे भू-माफियाओं को हतोत्साहित करने की जरुरत है, जो सिंध और मध्य पंजाब के हिंदू मंदिरों और गिरजाघरों पर कब्जे की कोशिश करते रहते हैं. जब हम पाकिस्तान के अल्पसंख्यकों को अधिक से अधिक संरक्षण देंगे तो भारतीय भी ऐसा ही करेंगे और वे अपने मुल्क के अल्पसंख्यकों की ज्यादा हिफाजत करेंगे.l
पाकिस्तानियों को अपने मस्ज़िदों की हिफाजत करनी चाहिये. आज की तारीख में हमारे मस्ज़िद हिंदु अतिवादियों के नहीं, मुस्लिम अतिवादियों के निशाने पर हैं. अतिवाद एक सोच का तरीका है.. इनका कोई मजहब नहीं होता. लेकिन कभी ये इस्लाम के नाम पर, कभी हिंदु धर्म के नाम पर तो कभी इसाइयत के नाम पर हमारे सामने आते हैं. हमें इन सबकी भर्त्सना करनी चाहिये.
(लेखक पाकिस्तानी चैनल जिओ टीवी के संपादक हैं.)
http://raviwar.com/news/409_pakistan-views-ayodhya-verdict-hamid-mir.shtml
हामिद मीर, इस्लामाबाद से
बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद के मामले में इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये फैसले पर किसी पाकिस्तानी मुसलमान के लिये निष्पक्ष टिप्पणी करना बेहद मुश्किल है. पाकिस्तान के अधिकांश मुसलमान मानते हैं कि यह ‘कानूनी’ नहीं ‘राजनीतिक’ फैसला है. फैसला आने के तुरंत बाद मैंने अपने टीवी शो ‘कैपिटल टॉक’ के फेस बुक पर आम पाकिस्तानी लोगों की राय जानने की कोशिश की.
बहुत से पाकिस्तानी इस फैसले से खुश नहीं थे लेकिन मैं एक टिप्पणी को लेकर चकित था, जिसमें कहा गया था कि “इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने भारतीय मुसलमानों को बचा लिया.” कुछ पाकिस्तानियों ने मुझे लिखा कि “यह उचित फैसला है.” इन ‘अल्पसंख्यक’ लेकिन महत्वपूर्ण टिप्पणियों ने मुझे एक भारतीय समाचार माध्यम के लिये लिखने को प्रेरित किया.
सबसे पहले तो मैं अपने भारतीय पाठकों को साफ करना चाहूंगा कि पाकिस्तानी मीडिया ने कभी भी इस फैसले को लेकर हिंदूओं के खिलाफ नफरत फैलाने की कोई कोशिश नहीं की. पाकिस्तान के सबसे बड़े निजी टेलीविजन चैनल जिओ टीवी पर इसका कवरेज बेहद संतुलित था. जिओ टीवी ने मुस्लिम जज जस्टिस एसयू खान के फैसले को प्रमुखता दी, जो हिंदू और मुस्लिम दोनों कौमों को अयोध्या की जमीन बराबरी से देने पर सहमत थे.
पाकिस्तानी मुसलमानों में अधिकांश सुन्नी बरेलवी विचारधारा के लोग हैं. सुन्नी बरेलवी मुसलमानों में सर्वाधिक सम्मानित विद्वान मुफ्ती मुन्नीबुर रहमान 30 सितंबर की रात 9 बजे के जीओ टीवी के न्यूज बुलेटिन में उपस्थित थे. उन्होंने फैसले पर अपनी राय देते हुये कहा कि इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय का यह फैसला राजनीतिक है लेकिन उन्होंने भारतीय मुसलमानों से अपील की कि “उन्हें अपनी भावनाओं पर काबू रखना चाहिये और इस्लाम के नाम पर किसी भी तरह की हिंसा से उन्हें दूर रहना चाहिये.”
मैं 1992 में बाबरी मस्ज़िद के गिराये जाने के बाद पाकिस्तान में हिंदू मंदिरों पर किये गये हमले को याद करता हूं. पाकिस्तान में चरमपंथी संगठनों ने उस त्रासदी का खूब फायदा उठाया. असल में चरमपंथी इस विवाद के सर्वाधिक लाभ उठाने वालों में थे, जो यह साबित करने की कोशिश में थे कि भारत के सभी हिंदू भारत के सभी मुसलमानों के दुश्मन हैं, जो सच नहीं था. 2001 तक बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद बहुत से लेखकों और पत्रकारों के लेखन का विषय था.
9/11 की घटना ने पूरी दुनिया को बदल दिया और पाकिस्तानी चरमपंथी गुटों की निगाहें भारत से मुड़कर अमरीका की ओर तन गईं. 2007 में पाकिस्तानी सेना द्वारा इस्लामाबाद के लाल मस्ज़िद पर किये गये हमले के बाद तो बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद का महत्व और भी कम हो गया. अधिकांश पाकिस्तानी मुसलमानों की सही या गलत राय थी कि अपदस्थ किये गये पाकिस्तान के मुख्य न्यायाधीश के पक्ष में वकीलों के आंदोलन से ध्यान हटाने के लिये यह परवेज मुशर्रफ द्वारा खुद ही रचा गया ड्रामा था. मुझे याद है कि 2007 में बहुत से मुस्लिम विद्वानों ने यह कहा था कि हम उन अतिवादी हिंदुओं की भर्त्सना करते हैं, जिन्होंने बाबरी मस्ज़िद पर हमला किया लेकिन अब पाकिस्तानी सेना द्वारा इस्लामाबाद में एक मस्ज़िद पर हमला किया गया है, तब हम क्या कहें ?
लाल मस्ज़िद ऑपरेशन ने पाकिस्तान में ज्यादा अतिवादिता फैलाई और वह एक नये दौर की शुरुवात थी. चरमपंथियों ने सुरक्षाबलों पर आत्मघाती हमले शुरु कर दिया और कुछ समय बाद तो वे उन सभी मस्ज़िदों पर भी हमला बोलने लगे, जहां सुरक्षा बल के अधिकारी नमाज पढ़ते थे. मैं यह स्वीकार करता हूं कि भारत में गैर मुसलमानों द्वारा जितने मस्ज़िद तोड़े गये होंगे, पाकिस्तान में उससे कहीं अधिक मस्ज़िदें तथाकथित मुसलमानों द्वारा तोड़ी गयीं.
मेरी राय में किसी भी पाकिस्तानी राजनीतिज्ञ या मजहबी गुट को बाबरी मस्ज़िद विवाद का फायदा उठाने की कोशिश नहीं करनी चाहिये. इस विवाद को भारत के मुसलमानों और हिंदुओं को पर छोड़ देना चाहिये, जो अपने कानूनी प्रक्रिया से इसे सुलझायेंगे. सुन्नी वक्फ़ बोर्ड फैसले से खुश नहीं है लेकिन ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के फैसले की पृष्ठभूमि में सुलह की उम्मीद देख रहा है. एक पाकिस्तानी के तौर पर हम क्या कर सकते हैं ?
मैं सोचता हूं कि बतौर पाकिस्तानी हमें अपने मुल्क के अल्पसंख्यकों को और अधिक कानूनी, राजनीतिक और नैतिक संरक्षण दें. सत्ता और विपक्ष में शामिल अपने कई मित्रों को मैंने पहले भी सुझाव दिया है कि हम पाकिस्तानी हिंदुओं, सिक्खों और इसाइयों के हितों का और ख्याल रखें. वो जितने मंदिर या चर्च बनाना चाहें, हम इसकी अनुमति उन्हें दें. हमें पाकिस्तान के ऐसे भू-माफियाओं को हतोत्साहित करने की जरुरत है, जो सिंध और मध्य पंजाब के हिंदू मंदिरों और गिरजाघरों पर कब्जे की कोशिश करते रहते हैं. जब हम पाकिस्तान के अल्पसंख्यकों को अधिक से अधिक संरक्षण देंगे तो भारतीय भी ऐसा ही करेंगे और वे अपने मुल्क के अल्पसंख्यकों की ज्यादा हिफाजत करेंगे.l
पाकिस्तानियों को अपने मस्ज़िदों की हिफाजत करनी चाहिये. आज की तारीख में हमारे मस्ज़िद हिंदु अतिवादियों के नहीं, मुस्लिम अतिवादियों के निशाने पर हैं. अतिवाद एक सोच का तरीका है.. इनका कोई मजहब नहीं होता. लेकिन कभी ये इस्लाम के नाम पर, कभी हिंदु धर्म के नाम पर तो कभी इसाइयत के नाम पर हमारे सामने आते हैं. हमें इन सबकी भर्त्सना करनी चाहिये.
(लेखक पाकिस्तानी चैनल जिओ टीवी के संपादक हैं.)
http://raviwar.com/news/409_pakistan-views-ayodhya-verdict-hamid-mir.shtml
Monday, October 04, 2010
Ansari opens talks for out-of-court deal
Ansari opens talks for out-of-court deal
October 04, 2010 4:22:02 PM
VN Das | Ayodhya
In an apparent move to solve the Ayodhya tangle through dialogue, the main plaintiff in the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, Mohd Hasim Ansari, on Sunday held a closed-door meeting with All India Akhara Parishad president Mahant Gyan Das.
Ansari (90) drove down to Hanumangarhi and was closeted with the Mahant for over an hour. The two are believed to have discussed the possibility of solving the complex issue through dialogue and “with the consent of the two communities”.
What exactly transpired at the meeting could not be known, but Ansari said he had the backing of Sunni Central Waqf Board. “It is clear that the Akhara Parishad and the Sunni Central Waqf Board are willing to solve the issue through dialogue. We are trying to reach a consensus which would be acceptable to both the communities,” Ansari told The Pioneer.
Mahant Gyan Das said that since it had been proved that the Ram Janmabhoomi complex was the birthplace of lord Ram, the process for construction of a magnificent temple should start after reaching an understanding between the religious heads of the communities. Both Hindu and Muslim religious leaders feel that the high court’s order on this issue should not be challenged in the Supreme Court, he added.
Many organisations have announced that they would challenge the Lucknow Bench’s verdict in the Supreme Court.
Ansari said the Waqf Board was not interested in moving the apex court and wanted to settle the issue “here itself” because “it feels the issue would linger on for many more years if the Supreme Court was moved”.
He added, “The board has authorised me to contact the Hindu religious heads for formulating a peaceful settlement. We believe this move may usher in communal harmony in the country.” He also criticised Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav for “politicising” the verdict for his own political gain. “Mulayam should not create hurdles in the final settlement of the issue. Let peace prevail in India,” he added.
Meanwhile, the twin cities of Faizabad and Ayodhya were abuzz on Sunday. The additional forces have been withdrawn and moved to Bihar ahead of the Assembly election there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287545/Ansari-opens-talks-for-out-of-court-deal.html
October 04, 2010 4:22:02 PM
VN Das | Ayodhya
In an apparent move to solve the Ayodhya tangle through dialogue, the main plaintiff in the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, Mohd Hasim Ansari, on Sunday held a closed-door meeting with All India Akhara Parishad president Mahant Gyan Das.
Ansari (90) drove down to Hanumangarhi and was closeted with the Mahant for over an hour. The two are believed to have discussed the possibility of solving the complex issue through dialogue and “with the consent of the two communities”.
What exactly transpired at the meeting could not be known, but Ansari said he had the backing of Sunni Central Waqf Board. “It is clear that the Akhara Parishad and the Sunni Central Waqf Board are willing to solve the issue through dialogue. We are trying to reach a consensus which would be acceptable to both the communities,” Ansari told The Pioneer.
Mahant Gyan Das said that since it had been proved that the Ram Janmabhoomi complex was the birthplace of lord Ram, the process for construction of a magnificent temple should start after reaching an understanding between the religious heads of the communities. Both Hindu and Muslim religious leaders feel that the high court’s order on this issue should not be challenged in the Supreme Court, he added.
Many organisations have announced that they would challenge the Lucknow Bench’s verdict in the Supreme Court.
Ansari said the Waqf Board was not interested in moving the apex court and wanted to settle the issue “here itself” because “it feels the issue would linger on for many more years if the Supreme Court was moved”.
He added, “The board has authorised me to contact the Hindu religious heads for formulating a peaceful settlement. We believe this move may usher in communal harmony in the country.” He also criticised Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav for “politicising” the verdict for his own political gain. “Mulayam should not create hurdles in the final settlement of the issue. Let peace prevail in India,” he added.
Meanwhile, the twin cities of Faizabad and Ayodhya were abuzz on Sunday. The additional forces have been withdrawn and moved to Bihar ahead of the Assembly election there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287545/Ansari-opens-talks-for-out-of-court-deal.html
The General could have it right
The General could have it right
Gen Pervez Musharraf should have become history after he exited office following the installation of an elected Government in Pakistan some two years ago. But the regime, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, has so completely frittered away the goodwill it rode upon to power that the former dictator now confidently talks of a return to active politics, ending his self-imposed exile in London. Having launched a new party, the All-Pakistan Muslim League and apologised for “political mistakes” that he did not elaborate upon, Gen Musharraf has cleverly sought to prepare a clean slate for his fresh innings. Yet, if he also slipped in the observation that the Pakistan Army should have a constitutional role to play in the country’s governance, it is an acknowledgement that he cannot hope to make a stellar return without the Army’s support. While it is not the first time he has expressed a desire to make Pakistan a “modern, progressive” state, many in that country could latch upon it as a slogan worth casting their lot with the former General, so disillusioned they are with the chaotic state of affairs under the PPP Government. It would, of course, be premature to second guess whether he will succeed in his comeback in the first place, let alone lead a Government, but there is no denying that the ground is fertile for his return. Mr Zardari’s Government — and the President in particular — has made a complete mess of the country. The friction between him and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and the less than comfortable relations Mr Zardari shares with the Army have resulted in a directionless administration. The Government has clearly lost the plot, with sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni groups breaking out routinely and claiming several lives, relief measures in the wake of the devastating floods going haywire and home-grown terrorists striking important cities with impunity.
From the Indian perspective too, Mr Zardari has been a failure since he ground to dust the huge expectations that he brought along in his ascent to power. Following the Kargil war, in which Gen Musharraf had emerged as the villain and which had seriously soured relations between Islamabad and New Delhi, the Indian establishment had hoped for a new initiative from a civilian Government across the border to bring relations back on track. For a moment in the initial months after taking over, the President did show some promise when he talked of “having an Indian heart and a Pakistani heart”, but it was soon clear that such talk would not translate into action. The 26/11 attacks sealed whatever hopes New Delhi had in Mr Zardari. His failed leadership has allowed the hawks to once again take over decision-making. The increasing relevance of Mr Gilani and Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is entirely due to the collapse of Mr Zardari’s leadership. The situation is bad enough for fears of another military coup that Gen Musharraf has spoken about, to be taken seriously. While Pakistan has seen several bouts of unpleasant military rule, it has also been betrayed by democratically elected inept Governments such as those of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mr Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. This has left the ordinary Pakistani with an unenviable dilemma, one that Gen Musharraf is fully exploiting. As a civilian and former military ruler, he perhaps wants to now distill the best of both in a Government he dreams of leading. We can only wait and watch.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287368/Musharrafs-gambit.html
Gen Pervez Musharraf should have become history after he exited office following the installation of an elected Government in Pakistan some two years ago. But the regime, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, has so completely frittered away the goodwill it rode upon to power that the former dictator now confidently talks of a return to active politics, ending his self-imposed exile in London. Having launched a new party, the All-Pakistan Muslim League and apologised for “political mistakes” that he did not elaborate upon, Gen Musharraf has cleverly sought to prepare a clean slate for his fresh innings. Yet, if he also slipped in the observation that the Pakistan Army should have a constitutional role to play in the country’s governance, it is an acknowledgement that he cannot hope to make a stellar return without the Army’s support. While it is not the first time he has expressed a desire to make Pakistan a “modern, progressive” state, many in that country could latch upon it as a slogan worth casting their lot with the former General, so disillusioned they are with the chaotic state of affairs under the PPP Government. It would, of course, be premature to second guess whether he will succeed in his comeback in the first place, let alone lead a Government, but there is no denying that the ground is fertile for his return. Mr Zardari’s Government — and the President in particular — has made a complete mess of the country. The friction between him and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and the less than comfortable relations Mr Zardari shares with the Army have resulted in a directionless administration. The Government has clearly lost the plot, with sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni groups breaking out routinely and claiming several lives, relief measures in the wake of the devastating floods going haywire and home-grown terrorists striking important cities with impunity.
From the Indian perspective too, Mr Zardari has been a failure since he ground to dust the huge expectations that he brought along in his ascent to power. Following the Kargil war, in which Gen Musharraf had emerged as the villain and which had seriously soured relations between Islamabad and New Delhi, the Indian establishment had hoped for a new initiative from a civilian Government across the border to bring relations back on track. For a moment in the initial months after taking over, the President did show some promise when he talked of “having an Indian heart and a Pakistani heart”, but it was soon clear that such talk would not translate into action. The 26/11 attacks sealed whatever hopes New Delhi had in Mr Zardari. His failed leadership has allowed the hawks to once again take over decision-making. The increasing relevance of Mr Gilani and Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is entirely due to the collapse of Mr Zardari’s leadership. The situation is bad enough for fears of another military coup that Gen Musharraf has spoken about, to be taken seriously. While Pakistan has seen several bouts of unpleasant military rule, it has also been betrayed by democratically elected inept Governments such as those of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mr Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. This has left the ordinary Pakistani with an unenviable dilemma, one that Gen Musharraf is fully exploiting. As a civilian and former military ruler, he perhaps wants to now distill the best of both in a Government he dreams of leading. We can only wait and watch.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287368/Musharrafs-gambit.html
BJP defeats Cong in Chhattisgarh by-poll
BJP defeats Cong in Chhattisgarh by-poll
October 04, 2010 4:19:45 PM
IANS | Raipur
The ruling BJP pulled off an impressive victory Monday in the Chhattisgarh assembly by-election from the Bhatgaon constitueny in Surguja district, handing over one of the worst defeats to arch rival Congress in recent years.
BJP candidate Rajni Tripathi won the seat by a margin of over 35,000 votes, defeating her nearest rival, Congress candidate U.S. Singhdeo. The poolls to the seat were held Oct 1 and there were 12 candidates in the fray.
The seat fell vacant following the death of the BJP's sitting legislator Ravi Shankar Tripathi, 55, in a car crash in April and the BJP fielded his widow while the Congress picked a member of the erstwhile royal family of Surguja as its candidate. The Bhatgaon constituency, some 400 km north of state capital Raipur in Surguja district, recorded over 75 percent votes in peaceful polling.
Buoyed by the victory, the BJP has described the win as the "people's approval of our development policy".
"People have reiterated faith in the BJP and has given a thumbs-up to the party to carry on the development policy and welfare schemes for poor and downtrodden people with more committment," Chief Minister Raman Singh said as he reacted to the party's success.
The Congress, which had high hopes from the by-election, did not have much to say after the defeat.
State party president Dhanendra Sahu said: "We will analyse in detail as to what went wrong."
With the impressive victory, the BJP's strength in the 90-member state assembly has risen to 48 while the Congress remains on 39. The BSP has two members.
The by-election to the Balod assembly constituency in Durg district is set to be held soon following the death of the BJP's sitting legislator Madanlal Sahu in August.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287556/BJP-defeats-Cong-in-Chhattisgarh-by-poll.html
October 04, 2010 4:19:45 PM
IANS | Raipur
The ruling BJP pulled off an impressive victory Monday in the Chhattisgarh assembly by-election from the Bhatgaon constitueny in Surguja district, handing over one of the worst defeats to arch rival Congress in recent years.
BJP candidate Rajni Tripathi won the seat by a margin of over 35,000 votes, defeating her nearest rival, Congress candidate U.S. Singhdeo. The poolls to the seat were held Oct 1 and there were 12 candidates in the fray.
The seat fell vacant following the death of the BJP's sitting legislator Ravi Shankar Tripathi, 55, in a car crash in April and the BJP fielded his widow while the Congress picked a member of the erstwhile royal family of Surguja as its candidate. The Bhatgaon constituency, some 400 km north of state capital Raipur in Surguja district, recorded over 75 percent votes in peaceful polling.
Buoyed by the victory, the BJP has described the win as the "people's approval of our development policy".
"People have reiterated faith in the BJP and has given a thumbs-up to the party to carry on the development policy and welfare schemes for poor and downtrodden people with more committment," Chief Minister Raman Singh said as he reacted to the party's success.
The Congress, which had high hopes from the by-election, did not have much to say after the defeat.
State party president Dhanendra Sahu said: "We will analyse in detail as to what went wrong."
With the impressive victory, the BJP's strength in the 90-member state assembly has risen to 48 while the Congress remains on 39. The BSP has two members.
The by-election to the Balod assembly constituency in Durg district is set to be held soon following the death of the BJP's sitting legislator Madanlal Sahu in August.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287556/BJP-defeats-Cong-in-Chhattisgarh-by-poll.html
Indian men's swimming quartet makes history
Indian men's swimming quartet makes history
October 04, 2010 4:18:58 PM
PTI | New Delhi
Indian men's relay swimming squad created history on Monday at the Commonwealth Games by reaching the final while the country's women paddlers showed encouraging form as competitions commenced in earnest today after yesterday's dazzling opening ceremony.
The quartet of Virdhawal Khade, Anshul Kothari, Arjun Jayaprakash and Aaron D'Souza finished sixth in the morning heats to make the evening final in 4x100m freestyle relay.
India also qualified for the semifinals when Badrinath Melkote (men's 50m backstroke) and Shubha Chittaranjan (women's 50m butterfly) finished 14th and 16th in their respective events.
Away from the pool, Indian women, seeded second in the table tennis team event, started their campaign on a resounding note by blanking Sri Lanka 3-0 in Group D at the Yamuna Sports complex.
Led by its biggest hope, Khade, the Indian freestyle team clocked 3:28.06s at the Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Aquatics Complex.
The Indian quartet finished 12.87s behind preliminary round toppers -- the Australian team of Kyle Morgan Richardson, Cameron Colin Prosser, James Magnussen and Tommaso William D'Orsogna in the heats.
Hailing the quartet's epoch-making feat national chief coach S Pradeep Kumar added the team, however, did not stand a chance to attain a podium finish.
"This is really fantastic. We have made history by reaching the final for the first time in Commonwealth Games competition," Pradeep said.
"Our timing is not good enough to earn a podium finish. It will be difficult in the final. However, we should aim for a fourth-place finish, which will be good for the relay team."
But all other swimmers sunk without making a splash. Surbahi Tipre and Arti Ghorpade finished a disappointing 22nd and 24th in women's 200m freestyle.
In men's 400m freestyle heats, Mandar Divase and Ullalmath Gangan finished distant 17th and 18th respectively.
Other Indians to bow out on day one included Beijing Olympian Rehan Poncha and Tarun Tokas (men's 200m butterfly); Priyanka Priyadarshini, Poorva Shetye and Mankiran Kaur (women's 50m breaststroke) and Pooja Alva (women's 200m IM).
Poncha was 17th while Tokas finished a lowly 20th in heats. Priyanka (35.43s) was the best among the Indian trio in women's 50m breaststroke, despite a disappointing 21st-place finish. Her teammates Poorva and Mankiran finished 24th and 25th respectively.
In table tennis, Mouma Das paved the way with a 11-4 11-5 11-4 demolition of Ishara Madurangi Darshika 11-4 11-5 11-4 before Shamini Kumareshan put the hosts 2-0 ahead by outclassing Nuwani Navodya 11-9 11-9 11-7.
Reigning national champion Poulomi Ghatak then wrapped up the tie by edging past Kavindi Rukmali 11-8 11-8 11-7.
The Indian eves have to play New Zealand next with Ghana as their other opponents in the group.
October 04, 2010 4:18:58 PM
PTI | New Delhi
Indian men's relay swimming squad created history on Monday at the Commonwealth Games by reaching the final while the country's women paddlers showed encouraging form as competitions commenced in earnest today after yesterday's dazzling opening ceremony.
The quartet of Virdhawal Khade, Anshul Kothari, Arjun Jayaprakash and Aaron D'Souza finished sixth in the morning heats to make the evening final in 4x100m freestyle relay.
India also qualified for the semifinals when Badrinath Melkote (men's 50m backstroke) and Shubha Chittaranjan (women's 50m butterfly) finished 14th and 16th in their respective events.
Away from the pool, Indian women, seeded second in the table tennis team event, started their campaign on a resounding note by blanking Sri Lanka 3-0 in Group D at the Yamuna Sports complex.
Led by its biggest hope, Khade, the Indian freestyle team clocked 3:28.06s at the Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Aquatics Complex.
The Indian quartet finished 12.87s behind preliminary round toppers -- the Australian team of Kyle Morgan Richardson, Cameron Colin Prosser, James Magnussen and Tommaso William D'Orsogna in the heats.
Hailing the quartet's epoch-making feat national chief coach S Pradeep Kumar added the team, however, did not stand a chance to attain a podium finish.
"This is really fantastic. We have made history by reaching the final for the first time in Commonwealth Games competition," Pradeep said.
"Our timing is not good enough to earn a podium finish. It will be difficult in the final. However, we should aim for a fourth-place finish, which will be good for the relay team."
But all other swimmers sunk without making a splash. Surbahi Tipre and Arti Ghorpade finished a disappointing 22nd and 24th in women's 200m freestyle.
In men's 400m freestyle heats, Mandar Divase and Ullalmath Gangan finished distant 17th and 18th respectively.
Other Indians to bow out on day one included Beijing Olympian Rehan Poncha and Tarun Tokas (men's 200m butterfly); Priyanka Priyadarshini, Poorva Shetye and Mankiran Kaur (women's 50m breaststroke) and Pooja Alva (women's 200m IM).
Poncha was 17th while Tokas finished a lowly 20th in heats. Priyanka (35.43s) was the best among the Indian trio in women's 50m breaststroke, despite a disappointing 21st-place finish. Her teammates Poorva and Mankiran finished 24th and 25th respectively.
In table tennis, Mouma Das paved the way with a 11-4 11-5 11-4 demolition of Ishara Madurangi Darshika 11-4 11-5 11-4 before Shamini Kumareshan put the hosts 2-0 ahead by outclassing Nuwani Navodya 11-9 11-9 11-7.
Reigning national champion Poulomi Ghatak then wrapped up the tie by edging past Kavindi Rukmali 11-8 11-8 11-7.
The Indian eves have to play New Zealand next with Ghana as their other opponents in the group.
Nalco moving out of Odisha
Nalco moving out of Odisha?
October 04, 2010 3:46:37 PM
PNS | Bhubaneswar
The change of guard at the Odisha-based National Aluminum Company Limited (Nalco) about a year ago seems to have brought in a significant shift in its focus, which may not go in favour of the State. AK Srivastava took over the Nalco chairmanship about a year ago.
Nalco has made its intentions clear by mentioning in the documents circulated to the media at a meeting on September 30 that it now plans to set up its future projects at any suitable location in India. This is contrary to the documents circulated by the public-sector company a year before having specifically mentioned a few locations within Odisha for those projects.
Answering a question at the news conference, Srivastava said that the company is still looking for possible sites within the State, an idea which was also supported by the company's finance director BL Bagra. However, none of them definitely said that the projects would be located in the State.
Srivastava said that Surat in Gujarat is the possible site for a nuclear power plant that was declared more than a year ago as Nalco's joint venture with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.
Even a proposed wind energy venture is said to be located anywhere in the country while many experts are of the view that the mines area of Nalco at Damanjodi in Odisha's Koraput district, where the company's smelter is situated, is quite suitable for such a project.
Observers feel that if Nalco's intentions are translated into action, it will be a clear betrayal of the interests of the State because Nalco is widely viewed as being able to achieve the Navratna PSU status by using the resources and peaceful industrial climate of the State while giving back hardly anything of substance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287534/Nalco-moving-out-of-Odisha.html
October 04, 2010 3:46:37 PM
PNS | Bhubaneswar
The change of guard at the Odisha-based National Aluminum Company Limited (Nalco) about a year ago seems to have brought in a significant shift in its focus, which may not go in favour of the State. AK Srivastava took over the Nalco chairmanship about a year ago.
Nalco has made its intentions clear by mentioning in the documents circulated to the media at a meeting on September 30 that it now plans to set up its future projects at any suitable location in India. This is contrary to the documents circulated by the public-sector company a year before having specifically mentioned a few locations within Odisha for those projects.
Answering a question at the news conference, Srivastava said that the company is still looking for possible sites within the State, an idea which was also supported by the company's finance director BL Bagra. However, none of them definitely said that the projects would be located in the State.
Srivastava said that Surat in Gujarat is the possible site for a nuclear power plant that was declared more than a year ago as Nalco's joint venture with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.
Even a proposed wind energy venture is said to be located anywhere in the country while many experts are of the view that the mines area of Nalco at Damanjodi in Odisha's Koraput district, where the company's smelter is situated, is quite suitable for such a project.
Observers feel that if Nalco's intentions are translated into action, it will be a clear betrayal of the interests of the State because Nalco is widely viewed as being able to achieve the Navratna PSU status by using the resources and peaceful industrial climate of the State while giving back hardly anything of substance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287534/Nalco-moving-out-of-Odisha.html
अयोध्या विवादः 15 प्रमुख मुद्दे पर 3 जजों का फैसला
अयोध्या विवादः 15 प्रमुख मुद्दे पर 3 जजों का फैसला
Source: भास्कर न्यूज | Last Updated 14:26(01/10/10)Comment| Share
Share16Buzz up!vote now
इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच ने अयोध्या में विवादित भूमि को तीन भागों में बांटने का फैसला सुनाया है। विवादित स्थल के मालिकाना हक को लेकर 60 साल पुराने मामले पर गुरुवार को सुनाए गए ऐतिहासिक फैसले में जमीन सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड, निर्मोही अखाड़ा और रामलला के पक्षकारों के बीच बांटने का निर्णय लिया गया है।
बेंच ने कहा कि जहां रामलला की मूर्ति स्थापित है, वह जमीन हिंदुओं की है। वहां से रामलला की मूर्ति को हटाया नहीं जाएगा। बेंच ने तीन महीने यथास्थिति बनाए रखने का आदेश दिया है। सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड, ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड और रामजन्म भूमि न्यास ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाने का फैसला किया है।
रामजन्म भूमि न्यास जमीन के बंटवारे के खिलाफ अपील करेगा। देशभर में कड़ी सुरक्षा के बीच कोर्ट रूम नंबर 21 में जस्टिस डीवी शर्मा, जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल और जस्टिस एसयू खान की बेंच ने यह फैसला सुनाया। बेंच ने दो-एक के बहुमत से सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड के दावे को खारिज कर दिया क्योंकि यह समय रहते दाखिल नहीं किया गया था। जस्टिस शर्मा और जस्टिस अग्रवाल ने वक्फ बोर्ड के दावे के खिलाफ व्यवस्था दी, जबकि जस्टिस खान ने वक्फ बोर्ड के पक्ष में फैसला दिया।
(विवादित जमीन तीन बराबर हिस्सों में बांटी जाएगी > तीन गुंबदों वाले ढांचे की केंद्रीय गुंबद के नीचे रामलला विराजमान हैं। यह हिस्सा रामलला के पक्षकारों को मिला। > निर्मोही अखाड़े को रामचबूतरा और सीता रसोई दी गई। > सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड को बाहरी परिसर में हिस्सेदारी मिलेगी।)
15 प्रमुख मुद्दे जिन पर तीनों जजों ने सुनाया अलग-अलग फैसला
1. क्या विवादित ढांचा मस्जिद थी?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का फैसला - हां, वादी का यह कहना सही है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का फैसला - प्रतिवादी (गोपाल सिंह विशारद) के हक में और वादी (सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड) के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का फैसला - हां
2. क्या यह मस्जिद है तो इसे बाबर ने बनवाया या मीर बाकी ने?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - वादी यह साबित करने में नाकामयाब रहे कि विवादित ढांचा बाबर या मीर बाकी ने बनवाया।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - इसे बाबर ने बनाया था।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - यह तय नहीं है कि मस्जिद किसने बनवाई।
3. क्या ढांचा किसी हिंदू मंदिर की जगह पर बनाया गया?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - हां
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - इस ढांचे को एक पुराने ढांचे को ढहाने के बाद बनाया गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - मस्जिद बनाने के लिए कोई हिंदू मंदिर नहीं ढहाया गया। उस स्थल पर काफी पहले से मंदिर के अवशेष पड़े थे। उनका इस्तेमाल मस्जिद बनाने में हुआ।
4. क्या बाबरी ढांचा में मुस्लिम आदिकाल से इबादत करते आए हैं?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - संबंधित इमारत मुस्लिम समुदाय द्वारा खासतौर पर इस्तेमाल नहीं की जाती थी। 18576-57 के बाद बाहरी परिसर खासतौर पर हिंदू इस्तेमाल करते रहे हैं और भीतर के परिसर में दोनों समुदायों के लोग इबादत के लिए जाते रहे हैं।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - ----
5. क्या 1949 तक विवादित जमीन पर मुस्लिमों का अधिकार था? और क्या उनसे कब्जा ले लिया गया?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - यह मुद्दा वादी यानी सेंट्रल सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड के खिलाफ जाता है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - वादी यानी सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - -----
6. क्या मुकदमा समय रहते दायर किया गया?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - नहीं, मुकदमा कानूनी समय सीमा के बाद दायर किया गया।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - इस मुद्दे पर भी वादी के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - ----
7. क्या हिंदुओं ने विवादित स्थल पर पूजा का अधिकार लंबे समय तक वहां पूजा-अर्चना करके हासिल किया है?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - कम से कम 1856-57 से यानी विभाजन करने वाली दीवार बनने के बाद से बाहरी परिसर मुस्लिमों द्वारा इस्तेमाल नहीं किया जाता था या उनके कब्जे में नहीं था। लेकिन भीतरी परिसर दोनों समुदाय इस्तेमाल करते रहे हैं।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - ----
8. क्या यह भूमि भगवान श्रीराम की जन्मभूमि है?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - हिंदुओं की आस्था के अनुसार ढांचे के तीन गुंबदों में से बीच वाले गुंबद के नीचे का क्षेत्र श्रीराम का जन्मस्थान है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - विवादित जगह भगवान राम की जन्मभूमि ही है।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - इस स्थल की मान्यता राम जन्मभूमि की है। लेकिन यह तय नहीं है कि ठीक किस स्थान को जन्मभूमि माना जाता है।
9. क्या 22-23 दिसंबर 1949 की दरमियानी रात को ढांचे के भीतर मूर्तियां रख दी गई या ये वहां पहले से मौजूद थीं?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - - मूर्तियां वहां 22-23 दिसंबर 1949 की दरमियानी रात को रख दी गई थी। इसके पहले यही मूर्तियां बाहरी परिसर में मौजूद थीं। इसलिए 16 जनवरी 1950 को जब मुकदमा नंबर 1 दायर किया गया तो उल्लेखित मूर्तियां भीतरी परिसर में केंद्रीय गुंबद के नीचे मौजूद थीं। यानी मुकदमा दायर करने के पहले।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - हां मूर्तियों को 22-23 दिसंबर की दरमियानी रात वहां रखा गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां इसी दौरान मुर्तियां रखी गईं
10. क्या हिंदुओं को ‘चरण’, ‘सीता रसोई’ और अन्यू मूर्तियों की पूजा करने का अधिकार था?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - -------
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - यह साबित हुआ कि हिन्दुओं को यह हक था।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
11. क्या रामजन्मभूमि पर हिंदू आदिकाल से पूजा-अर्चना करते रहे हैं और तीर्थयात्रा के लिए वहां आते रहे हैं?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब -
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - इसका फैसला भी प्रतिवादी (गोपाल सिंह विशारद) के हक में गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
12. क्या हिंदुओं को जानकारी रहते हुए 1528 से मुस्लिमों का विवादित भूमि पर कब्जा रहा है?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - इसका जवाब नकारात्मक है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
13. क्या बाबरी मस्जिद बनने के बाद भगवान श्रीराम और अन्य देवी-देवताओं की मूर्तियां वहां थी और श्रद्धालु उनकी पूजा करते थे?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - - इसका जवाब इस हद तक सकारात्मक है कि भगवान श्रीराम की जन्म भूमि समझा जाने वाले परिसर पर हिंदू श्रद्धालु आते रहे थे।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - नहीं
14. क्या ढांचे के चारो ओर हिंदुओं के पूजा स्थल थे?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - ढांचे तक हिंदुओं के पूजा स्थल से गुजरकर ही पहुंचा जा सकता था। हालांकि इस तथ्य से कोई नतीजा नहीं निकलता।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - विवादित ढांचे को एक पुराने ढांचे को ढहाने के बाद बनाया गया। एएसआई के मुताबिक यह एक बड़ा हिंदू धार्मिक ढांचा था। विवादित ढांचे को मस्जिद नहीं माना जा सकता क्योंकि इसे इस्लाम के सिद्धांतों के विरुद्ध बनाया गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
15. क्या ढांचे के बनने के ठीक पहले तक वहां हिंदुओं का पूजा स्थल था? यदि हां क्या इस्लाम के सिद्धांतों के मुताबिक वहां मस्जिद बनाना गलत था?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - ढांचे के बनने तक हिंदू वहां पूजा करते रहे हैं, लेकिन इससे विवादित इमारत के दर्जे पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ता। क्योंकि ढांचे का निर्माण एकछत्र सम्राट के आदेश पर हुआ था और अदालत उस पर फैसला नहीं दे सकती थी। लेकिन मस्जिद बनाने के मुद्दा वादी यानी वक्फ बोर्ड के पक्ष में जाता है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी (सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड) के खिलाफ फैसला।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
इन्होंने लिखा इतिहास
जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल के फैसले की मुख्य बातें
विवादास्पद स्थान के अंतर्गत केंद्रीय गुंबद के दायरे में आना वाला क्षेत्र भगवान राम का जन्म स्थान है, जैसा की हिंदू धर्मावलंबी सोचते हैं। विवादास्पद स्थान को हमेशा मस्जिद की तरह माना गया और वहां मुस्लिमों ने नमाज पढ़ी। लेकिन यह साबित नहीं हुआ कि यह बाबर के समय 1528 में बनाई गई थी।
जस्टिस एस.यू. खान के फैसले की मुख्य बातें
मस्जिद बनाने के लिए किसी मंदिर को तोड़ा नहीं गया है। मंदिर के अवशेष पर मस्जिद का निर्माण हुआ था। हालांकि, मस्जिद का निर्माण बहुत बाद में हुआ। मस्जिद के निर्माण में मंदिर के अवशेषों का इस्तेमाल हुआ था। मस्जिद बनने से पहले लंबे समय तक हिंदू विवादित जमीन के हिस्से को भगवान राम का जन्मस्थान मानते रहे हैं।
जस्टिस धर्मवीर शर्मा के फैसले की मुख्य बातें
- पूरा विवादित स्थल भगवान राम का जन्म स्थान है। मुगल बादशाह बाबर द्वारा बनवाई गई विवादित इमारत का ढांचा इस्लामी कानून के खिलाफ थी और इस्लामी मूल्यों के अनुरूप नहीं थी। मेरा फैसला 2,666 पृष्ठों का है।
Source: भास्कर न्यूज | Last Updated 14:26(01/10/10)Comment| Share
Share16Buzz up!vote now
इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच ने अयोध्या में विवादित भूमि को तीन भागों में बांटने का फैसला सुनाया है। विवादित स्थल के मालिकाना हक को लेकर 60 साल पुराने मामले पर गुरुवार को सुनाए गए ऐतिहासिक फैसले में जमीन सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड, निर्मोही अखाड़ा और रामलला के पक्षकारों के बीच बांटने का निर्णय लिया गया है।
बेंच ने कहा कि जहां रामलला की मूर्ति स्थापित है, वह जमीन हिंदुओं की है। वहां से रामलला की मूर्ति को हटाया नहीं जाएगा। बेंच ने तीन महीने यथास्थिति बनाए रखने का आदेश दिया है। सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड, ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड और रामजन्म भूमि न्यास ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाने का फैसला किया है।
रामजन्म भूमि न्यास जमीन के बंटवारे के खिलाफ अपील करेगा। देशभर में कड़ी सुरक्षा के बीच कोर्ट रूम नंबर 21 में जस्टिस डीवी शर्मा, जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल और जस्टिस एसयू खान की बेंच ने यह फैसला सुनाया। बेंच ने दो-एक के बहुमत से सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड के दावे को खारिज कर दिया क्योंकि यह समय रहते दाखिल नहीं किया गया था। जस्टिस शर्मा और जस्टिस अग्रवाल ने वक्फ बोर्ड के दावे के खिलाफ व्यवस्था दी, जबकि जस्टिस खान ने वक्फ बोर्ड के पक्ष में फैसला दिया।
(विवादित जमीन तीन बराबर हिस्सों में बांटी जाएगी > तीन गुंबदों वाले ढांचे की केंद्रीय गुंबद के नीचे रामलला विराजमान हैं। यह हिस्सा रामलला के पक्षकारों को मिला। > निर्मोही अखाड़े को रामचबूतरा और सीता रसोई दी गई। > सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड को बाहरी परिसर में हिस्सेदारी मिलेगी।)
15 प्रमुख मुद्दे जिन पर तीनों जजों ने सुनाया अलग-अलग फैसला
1. क्या विवादित ढांचा मस्जिद थी?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का फैसला - हां, वादी का यह कहना सही है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का फैसला - प्रतिवादी (गोपाल सिंह विशारद) के हक में और वादी (सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड) के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का फैसला - हां
2. क्या यह मस्जिद है तो इसे बाबर ने बनवाया या मीर बाकी ने?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - वादी यह साबित करने में नाकामयाब रहे कि विवादित ढांचा बाबर या मीर बाकी ने बनवाया।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - इसे बाबर ने बनाया था।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - यह तय नहीं है कि मस्जिद किसने बनवाई।
3. क्या ढांचा किसी हिंदू मंदिर की जगह पर बनाया गया?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - हां
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - इस ढांचे को एक पुराने ढांचे को ढहाने के बाद बनाया गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - मस्जिद बनाने के लिए कोई हिंदू मंदिर नहीं ढहाया गया। उस स्थल पर काफी पहले से मंदिर के अवशेष पड़े थे। उनका इस्तेमाल मस्जिद बनाने में हुआ।
4. क्या बाबरी ढांचा में मुस्लिम आदिकाल से इबादत करते आए हैं?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - संबंधित इमारत मुस्लिम समुदाय द्वारा खासतौर पर इस्तेमाल नहीं की जाती थी। 18576-57 के बाद बाहरी परिसर खासतौर पर हिंदू इस्तेमाल करते रहे हैं और भीतर के परिसर में दोनों समुदायों के लोग इबादत के लिए जाते रहे हैं।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - ----
5. क्या 1949 तक विवादित जमीन पर मुस्लिमों का अधिकार था? और क्या उनसे कब्जा ले लिया गया?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - यह मुद्दा वादी यानी सेंट्रल सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड के खिलाफ जाता है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - वादी यानी सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - -----
6. क्या मुकदमा समय रहते दायर किया गया?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - नहीं, मुकदमा कानूनी समय सीमा के बाद दायर किया गया।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - इस मुद्दे पर भी वादी के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - ----
7. क्या हिंदुओं ने विवादित स्थल पर पूजा का अधिकार लंबे समय तक वहां पूजा-अर्चना करके हासिल किया है?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - कम से कम 1856-57 से यानी विभाजन करने वाली दीवार बनने के बाद से बाहरी परिसर मुस्लिमों द्वारा इस्तेमाल नहीं किया जाता था या उनके कब्जे में नहीं था। लेकिन भीतरी परिसर दोनों समुदाय इस्तेमाल करते रहे हैं।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - ----
8. क्या यह भूमि भगवान श्रीराम की जन्मभूमि है?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - हिंदुओं की आस्था के अनुसार ढांचे के तीन गुंबदों में से बीच वाले गुंबद के नीचे का क्षेत्र श्रीराम का जन्मस्थान है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - विवादित जगह भगवान राम की जन्मभूमि ही है।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - इस स्थल की मान्यता राम जन्मभूमि की है। लेकिन यह तय नहीं है कि ठीक किस स्थान को जन्मभूमि माना जाता है।
9. क्या 22-23 दिसंबर 1949 की दरमियानी रात को ढांचे के भीतर मूर्तियां रख दी गई या ये वहां पहले से मौजूद थीं?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - - मूर्तियां वहां 22-23 दिसंबर 1949 की दरमियानी रात को रख दी गई थी। इसके पहले यही मूर्तियां बाहरी परिसर में मौजूद थीं। इसलिए 16 जनवरी 1950 को जब मुकदमा नंबर 1 दायर किया गया तो उल्लेखित मूर्तियां भीतरी परिसर में केंद्रीय गुंबद के नीचे मौजूद थीं। यानी मुकदमा दायर करने के पहले।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - हां मूर्तियों को 22-23 दिसंबर की दरमियानी रात वहां रखा गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां इसी दौरान मुर्तियां रखी गईं
10. क्या हिंदुओं को ‘चरण’, ‘सीता रसोई’ और अन्यू मूर्तियों की पूजा करने का अधिकार था?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - -------
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - यह साबित हुआ कि हिन्दुओं को यह हक था।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
11. क्या रामजन्मभूमि पर हिंदू आदिकाल से पूजा-अर्चना करते रहे हैं और तीर्थयात्रा के लिए वहां आते रहे हैं?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब -
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - इसका फैसला भी प्रतिवादी (गोपाल सिंह विशारद) के हक में गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
12. क्या हिंदुओं को जानकारी रहते हुए 1528 से मुस्लिमों का विवादित भूमि पर कब्जा रहा है?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - इसका जवाब नकारात्मक है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
13. क्या बाबरी मस्जिद बनने के बाद भगवान श्रीराम और अन्य देवी-देवताओं की मूर्तियां वहां थी और श्रद्धालु उनकी पूजा करते थे?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - - इसका जवाब इस हद तक सकारात्मक है कि भगवान श्रीराम की जन्म भूमि समझा जाने वाले परिसर पर हिंदू श्रद्धालु आते रहे थे।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी के खिलाफ फैसला।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - नहीं
14. क्या ढांचे के चारो ओर हिंदुओं के पूजा स्थल थे?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - ढांचे तक हिंदुओं के पूजा स्थल से गुजरकर ही पहुंचा जा सकता था। हालांकि इस तथ्य से कोई नतीजा नहीं निकलता।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - विवादित ढांचे को एक पुराने ढांचे को ढहाने के बाद बनाया गया। एएसआई के मुताबिक यह एक बड़ा हिंदू धार्मिक ढांचा था। विवादित ढांचे को मस्जिद नहीं माना जा सकता क्योंकि इसे इस्लाम के सिद्धांतों के विरुद्ध बनाया गया।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
15. क्या ढांचे के बनने के ठीक पहले तक वहां हिंदुओं का पूजा स्थल था? यदि हां क्या इस्लाम के सिद्धांतों के मुताबिक वहां मस्जिद बनाना गलत था?
- जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल का जवाब - ढांचे के बनने तक हिंदू वहां पूजा करते रहे हैं, लेकिन इससे विवादित इमारत के दर्जे पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ता। क्योंकि ढांचे का निर्माण एकछत्र सम्राट के आदेश पर हुआ था और अदालत उस पर फैसला नहीं दे सकती थी। लेकिन मस्जिद बनाने के मुद्दा वादी यानी वक्फ बोर्ड के पक्ष में जाता है।
- जस्टिस धरमवीर शर्मा का जवाब - - वादी (सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड) के खिलाफ फैसला।
- जस्टिस एस.यू खान का जवाब - हां
इन्होंने लिखा इतिहास
जस्टिस सुधीर अग्रवाल के फैसले की मुख्य बातें
विवादास्पद स्थान के अंतर्गत केंद्रीय गुंबद के दायरे में आना वाला क्षेत्र भगवान राम का जन्म स्थान है, जैसा की हिंदू धर्मावलंबी सोचते हैं। विवादास्पद स्थान को हमेशा मस्जिद की तरह माना गया और वहां मुस्लिमों ने नमाज पढ़ी। लेकिन यह साबित नहीं हुआ कि यह बाबर के समय 1528 में बनाई गई थी।
जस्टिस एस.यू. खान के फैसले की मुख्य बातें
मस्जिद बनाने के लिए किसी मंदिर को तोड़ा नहीं गया है। मंदिर के अवशेष पर मस्जिद का निर्माण हुआ था। हालांकि, मस्जिद का निर्माण बहुत बाद में हुआ। मस्जिद के निर्माण में मंदिर के अवशेषों का इस्तेमाल हुआ था। मस्जिद बनने से पहले लंबे समय तक हिंदू विवादित जमीन के हिस्से को भगवान राम का जन्मस्थान मानते रहे हैं।
जस्टिस धर्मवीर शर्मा के फैसले की मुख्य बातें
- पूरा विवादित स्थल भगवान राम का जन्म स्थान है। मुगल बादशाह बाबर द्वारा बनवाई गई विवादित इमारत का ढांचा इस्लामी कानून के खिलाफ थी और इस्लामी मूल्यों के अनुरूप नहीं थी। मेरा फैसला 2,666 पृष्ठों का है।
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Muslim leaders lambast 'Maulana' Mulayam for trying to score brownie points on Ayodhya
Muslim leaders lambast 'Maulana' Mulayam for trying to score brownie points on Ayodhya
October 02, 2010 3:54:56 PM
PTI | Lucknow
Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh's remarks that the Muslim community felt cheated by the Ayodhya title suit verdict has evoked sharp reaction from the community leaders, who dubbed it as "unwise" to make politically motivated statements at this time.
"The atmosphere at the national level has been positive with religious leaders of both the communities, political leadership as well as the media. It would not be wise if politically motivated statements which could vitiate communal harmony are issued now," said Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangimahli, the Niab Imam of Idgah and member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
He told PTI that it was heartening that "no one has so far shown immaturity...Not even the Sangh Parivar and there should be restraint from now on to ensure that nothing is done which could give strength to fundamentalist forces."
He said though there is disappointment among the community over the verdict, it is in the larger interest of the country and communal harmony that restraint should be exercised.
Echoing Firangimahli's views, Maulana Mohammad Umer of Islami research institute Darul Musinnfeen termed Yadav's statement "ill-timed".
"Though he is expressing the views held by the community, the timing is not correct," Maulana Umer said.
Maulana Mohammad Mirza Athar of Shia Personal Law Board said that it was unbecoming of a senior leader like Mulayam Singh Yadav to issue such a statement at a time when everyone is trying their best to ensure peace and harmony.
"In a court case, there is bound to be one side on the losing side and after this verdict by the High Court, the option of approaching the Supreme Court or making an effort to resolve the issue through mutual understanding is still open and in this backdrop such statements are unnecessary," he said.
Noted Shia leader and member of the AIMPLB, Hamidul Hasan refused to comment on Yadav's statement, but appeal to everyone to desist from issuing statements which could hurt unity and peace of the country.
Maulana Mohammad Mushtaq of the All India Sunni Board asserted that none of the Muslim leaders have said anything adverse on the verdict.
"It is the time to ensure peace and communal harmony and an appeal in this regard was also made after the Firday prayers to not politicise the issue", Mohammad Mushtaq added.
The SP chief had yesterday said he was disappointed by the Ayodhya title suits verdict as he felt faith was given "priority" over legal procedures
October 02, 2010 3:54:56 PM
PTI | Lucknow
Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh's remarks that the Muslim community felt cheated by the Ayodhya title suit verdict has evoked sharp reaction from the community leaders, who dubbed it as "unwise" to make politically motivated statements at this time.
"The atmosphere at the national level has been positive with religious leaders of both the communities, political leadership as well as the media. It would not be wise if politically motivated statements which could vitiate communal harmony are issued now," said Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangimahli, the Niab Imam of Idgah and member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
He told PTI that it was heartening that "no one has so far shown immaturity...Not even the Sangh Parivar and there should be restraint from now on to ensure that nothing is done which could give strength to fundamentalist forces."
He said though there is disappointment among the community over the verdict, it is in the larger interest of the country and communal harmony that restraint should be exercised.
Echoing Firangimahli's views, Maulana Mohammad Umer of Islami research institute Darul Musinnfeen termed Yadav's statement "ill-timed".
"Though he is expressing the views held by the community, the timing is not correct," Maulana Umer said.
Maulana Mohammad Mirza Athar of Shia Personal Law Board said that it was unbecoming of a senior leader like Mulayam Singh Yadav to issue such a statement at a time when everyone is trying their best to ensure peace and harmony.
"In a court case, there is bound to be one side on the losing side and after this verdict by the High Court, the option of approaching the Supreme Court or making an effort to resolve the issue through mutual understanding is still open and in this backdrop such statements are unnecessary," he said.
Noted Shia leader and member of the AIMPLB, Hamidul Hasan refused to comment on Yadav's statement, but appeal to everyone to desist from issuing statements which could hurt unity and peace of the country.
Maulana Mohammad Mushtaq of the All India Sunni Board asserted that none of the Muslim leaders have said anything adverse on the verdict.
"It is the time to ensure peace and communal harmony and an appeal in this regard was also made after the Firday prayers to not politicise the issue", Mohammad Mushtaq added.
The SP chief had yesterday said he was disappointed by the Ayodhya title suits verdict as he felt faith was given "priority" over legal procedures
Shia group offers donation for Ram temple
Shia group offers donation for Ram temple
October 02, 2010 3:53:43 PM
IANS | Lucknow
Announcing a donation of Rs.15 lakh for starting the construction of the much-debated temple at Ayodhya, a Shia youth organisation here says it opposes with any move to appeal against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya dispute.
"We will make a formal request to the Sunni Central Waqf Board not to go into appeal against the high court verdict. and to bring an end to the long pending dispute once and for all," Shia Hussaini Tigers chief Shamil Shamsi told reporters here Saturday.
He also proposes to take a delegation to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board with the same appeal.
Shamsi is a close kin of widely revered Shia cleric and scholar Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, who was also the senior vice president of All India Muslim Personal Law Board. And Kalbe Sadiq's cousin Maulana Kalbe Jawaad, who also commands a large following of Shia Muslims across the country, is the chief patron of Hussaini Tigers.
Maulana Kalbe Sadiq was not available for comment as he was stated to be indisposed.
Shamsi termed as "extremely unfortunate" the verdict's criticism by Maulana Ahmed Bukhari, the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, as well as by Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, who said the Muslims in the country eere unhappy at the verdict.
Shamsi sought to remind various Muslim leaders that they must stick to their word of abiding by the court verdict. "I feel the board should take an initiative to end the dispute for good," he asserted.
Hussaini Tigers that represents the Shia youth in the country feels "the court order has given India an opportunity to prove to the world that this nation can set an example of unique communal harmony by getting Muslims to assist in the construction of the temple and Hindus to facilitate construction of the mosque -- which would also fulfil the terms of the verdict in letter and spirit", Shamsi said.
A special three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench Thursday by a majority verdict ruled that the place where the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya stood, before it was razed by Hindu mobs in 1992, was indeed the birthplace of Hindu god Ram.
It also ruled that the entire disputed land in Ayodhya, a riverside temple town in Uttar Pradesh, should be divided among the Sunni central Waqf Board, the Ram temple and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect that were among those who fought the court battle.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287180/Shia-group-offers-donation-for-Ram-temple.html
October 02, 2010 3:53:43 PM
IANS | Lucknow
Announcing a donation of Rs.15 lakh for starting the construction of the much-debated temple at Ayodhya, a Shia youth organisation here says it opposes with any move to appeal against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya dispute.
"We will make a formal request to the Sunni Central Waqf Board not to go into appeal against the high court verdict. and to bring an end to the long pending dispute once and for all," Shia Hussaini Tigers chief Shamil Shamsi told reporters here Saturday.
He also proposes to take a delegation to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board with the same appeal.
Shamsi is a close kin of widely revered Shia cleric and scholar Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, who was also the senior vice president of All India Muslim Personal Law Board. And Kalbe Sadiq's cousin Maulana Kalbe Jawaad, who also commands a large following of Shia Muslims across the country, is the chief patron of Hussaini Tigers.
Maulana Kalbe Sadiq was not available for comment as he was stated to be indisposed.
Shamsi termed as "extremely unfortunate" the verdict's criticism by Maulana Ahmed Bukhari, the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, as well as by Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, who said the Muslims in the country eere unhappy at the verdict.
Shamsi sought to remind various Muslim leaders that they must stick to their word of abiding by the court verdict. "I feel the board should take an initiative to end the dispute for good," he asserted.
Hussaini Tigers that represents the Shia youth in the country feels "the court order has given India an opportunity to prove to the world that this nation can set an example of unique communal harmony by getting Muslims to assist in the construction of the temple and Hindus to facilitate construction of the mosque -- which would also fulfil the terms of the verdict in letter and spirit", Shamsi said.
A special three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench Thursday by a majority verdict ruled that the place where the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya stood, before it was razed by Hindu mobs in 1992, was indeed the birthplace of Hindu god Ram.
It also ruled that the entire disputed land in Ayodhya, a riverside temple town in Uttar Pradesh, should be divided among the Sunni central Waqf Board, the Ram temple and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect that were among those who fought the court battle.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287180/Shia-group-offers-donation-for-Ram-temple.html
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Statement of Sarsanghachalak ma. Mohanrao Bhagwat on the Allahabad High Court Judgement on Ayodhya
Statement of Sarsanghachalak ma. Mohanrao Bhagwat on the Allahabad High Court Judgement on Ayodhya
Through today's verdict the Allahabad High Court has acknowledged and ratified the age-old faith of crores of people of Bharat in Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram and his Janm Bhumi. There for I welcome and congratulate the honourable Justices who delivered it. I also congratulate the battery of lawyers who were involved in this legal battle, all the saints who were leading the Ram Janm Bhumi movement and all the others including the people of the country who participated in it in a big way. I offer my respectful homage to the sacred and inspiring memory of all those Karsevaks like Kothari brothers who have laid down their lives in the movement for reestablishing that faith.
Building of the Ram temple signifies the identity, honour, independence and valour of our country. Sri Ram is the epitome of the eternal, inclusive, caring and tolerant culture of our Bharat. The movement for Ram Temple is not a reactionary one, nor is it against any particular community.
Hence this verdict, that facilitates building of a magnificent temple for Maryada Purushottam Ram, should not be seen by the society as a victory to any group or defeat to the other. Our joy and happiness should find expression in a controlled, peaceful manner within the limits of law and Constitution; uncalled for provocations must be avoided. This is an excellent opportunity to rise above all the past experiences in the spirit of our tolerant and inclusive national culture and strive to organise our diverse, multiple-lingual and multiple-religious society into a united, disciplined and conflict-free one inspired by a grand and sacred vision.
Hence I take this opportunity to heartily and affectionately call upon all our countrymen including the Muslims to forget all the ill-will and hard feelings borne out of the conflicts of the past decades and welcome the verdict of the judiciary, thus becoming active collaborators in organising necessary constitutional and practical means for building the magnificent temple for Maryadaurushottam Sri Ram.
Through today's verdict the Allahabad High Court has acknowledged and ratified the age-old faith of crores of people of Bharat in Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram and his Janm Bhumi. There for I welcome and congratulate the honourable Justices who delivered it. I also congratulate the battery of lawyers who were involved in this legal battle, all the saints who were leading the Ram Janm Bhumi movement and all the others including the people of the country who participated in it in a big way. I offer my respectful homage to the sacred and inspiring memory of all those Karsevaks like Kothari brothers who have laid down their lives in the movement for reestablishing that faith.
Building of the Ram temple signifies the identity, honour, independence and valour of our country. Sri Ram is the epitome of the eternal, inclusive, caring and tolerant culture of our Bharat. The movement for Ram Temple is not a reactionary one, nor is it against any particular community.
Hence this verdict, that facilitates building of a magnificent temple for Maryada Purushottam Ram, should not be seen by the society as a victory to any group or defeat to the other. Our joy and happiness should find expression in a controlled, peaceful manner within the limits of law and Constitution; uncalled for provocations must be avoided. This is an excellent opportunity to rise above all the past experiences in the spirit of our tolerant and inclusive national culture and strive to organise our diverse, multiple-lingual and multiple-religious society into a united, disciplined and conflict-free one inspired by a grand and sacred vision.
Hence I take this opportunity to heartily and affectionately call upon all our countrymen including the Muslims to forget all the ill-will and hard feelings borne out of the conflicts of the past decades and welcome the verdict of the judiciary, thus becoming active collaborators in organising necessary constitutional and practical means for building the magnificent temple for Maryadaurushottam Sri Ram.
पू. सरसंघचालक मा. मोहन भागवत् जी का अलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के अयोध्या निर्णय पर वक्तव्य
पू. सरसंघचालक मा. मोहन भागवत् जी का अलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के अयोध्या निर्णय पर वक्तव्य
श्रीरामजन्मभूमि को लेकर चलते आए न्यायिक विवाद में अलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दि. 30 सितम्बर 2010 को घोषित निर्णय से मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम श्रीराम तथा उनकी जन्मभूमि अयोध्या के प्रति भारत के जनमानस की सनातन आस्था को अनुमोदित व सम्मानित किया है। इसलिए निर्णयकर्ता न्यायाधीशोंका, न्यायिक प्रक्रिया में सहभागी अधिवक्ताओं का, श्रीरामजन्मभूमि आंदोलन का नेतृत्व करनेवाले सभी संतों का, आंदोलन करनेवाली जनता सहित सभी सहयोगियों का हम हार्दिक अभिनन्दन करते है। उस आस्था की प्रतिष्ठापना के लिए चले श्रीरामजन्मभूमि आंदोलन में अपने प्राणों का बलिदान देनेवाले कोठारी बंधुओं जैसे सभी कारसेवकों की पवित्र व तेजस्वी स्मृति में हम अपनी श्रद्धावनत आदरांजलि अर्पण करते हैं।
मंदिर का निर्माण इस देष की पहचान, अस्मिता, स्वातंत्र्याकांक्षा तथा विजिगीषा का गौरव है। अपने इस भारतवर्ष की सनातन, सर्वसमावेशक, सबके प्रति आत्मीय व सहिष्णु संस्कृति के आचरण की मर्यादा के मानक श्रीराम है। मंदिर निर्माण का आंदोलन किसी वर्गविशेष के विरोध अथवा प्रतिक्रिया में नहीं है।
अतएव रामजन्मभूमि पर मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम श्रीराम के भव्य मंदिर के निर्माण की प्रक्रिया का मार्ग प्रशस्त करनेवाले न्यायालय के इस निर्णय को समाज के किसी वर्ग की विजय अथवा पराजय के रूप में नही देखा जाना चाहिए। अपने हर्श को संयमित, शान्तिपूर्ण, विधि व संविधान की मर्यादा में ही, अकारण उत्तेजना से बचते हुए समझदारी से व्यक्त करना चाहिए। राष्ट्रीय संस्कृति की सहिष्णुता व सर्वसमावेशकता की प्रतिष्ठा को ध्यान में रखते हुए, पुरानी घटनाओंको भूलकर, एक भव्य व पवित्र लक्ष्य के आधारपर, अनेक भौगोलिक, भाशिक व पांथिक विविधताओंसे सुशोभित अपने समाज को एकात्मता व मर्यादा के दृढ सूत्र में गूँथकर भेदरहित बनाने का यह अवसर मिला हें। इसीलिये इस अवसर पर इस देश के मुसलमानोंसहित अपने समाज के सभी वर्गोको हमारा हार्दिक तथा आत्मीयतापूर्ण आवाहन हैं कि गत दषकों में चले अनेक विवादों की कटुता, हृदयोंकी विषमता व असहजता को भूलकर न्यायालय के निर्णय का स्वागत करते हुए श्रीरामजन्मभूमिपर मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम श्रीराम के भव्य मंदिर के निर्माण की संवैधानिक व व्यावहारिक व्यवस्थाएँ निर्माण करने के अभियान में मिलजुलकर सहयोगी बने।
श्रीरामजन्मभूमि को लेकर चलते आए न्यायिक विवाद में अलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दि. 30 सितम्बर 2010 को घोषित निर्णय से मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम श्रीराम तथा उनकी जन्मभूमि अयोध्या के प्रति भारत के जनमानस की सनातन आस्था को अनुमोदित व सम्मानित किया है। इसलिए निर्णयकर्ता न्यायाधीशोंका, न्यायिक प्रक्रिया में सहभागी अधिवक्ताओं का, श्रीरामजन्मभूमि आंदोलन का नेतृत्व करनेवाले सभी संतों का, आंदोलन करनेवाली जनता सहित सभी सहयोगियों का हम हार्दिक अभिनन्दन करते है। उस आस्था की प्रतिष्ठापना के लिए चले श्रीरामजन्मभूमि आंदोलन में अपने प्राणों का बलिदान देनेवाले कोठारी बंधुओं जैसे सभी कारसेवकों की पवित्र व तेजस्वी स्मृति में हम अपनी श्रद्धावनत आदरांजलि अर्पण करते हैं।
मंदिर का निर्माण इस देष की पहचान, अस्मिता, स्वातंत्र्याकांक्षा तथा विजिगीषा का गौरव है। अपने इस भारतवर्ष की सनातन, सर्वसमावेशक, सबके प्रति आत्मीय व सहिष्णु संस्कृति के आचरण की मर्यादा के मानक श्रीराम है। मंदिर निर्माण का आंदोलन किसी वर्गविशेष के विरोध अथवा प्रतिक्रिया में नहीं है।
अतएव रामजन्मभूमि पर मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम श्रीराम के भव्य मंदिर के निर्माण की प्रक्रिया का मार्ग प्रशस्त करनेवाले न्यायालय के इस निर्णय को समाज के किसी वर्ग की विजय अथवा पराजय के रूप में नही देखा जाना चाहिए। अपने हर्श को संयमित, शान्तिपूर्ण, विधि व संविधान की मर्यादा में ही, अकारण उत्तेजना से बचते हुए समझदारी से व्यक्त करना चाहिए। राष्ट्रीय संस्कृति की सहिष्णुता व सर्वसमावेशकता की प्रतिष्ठा को ध्यान में रखते हुए, पुरानी घटनाओंको भूलकर, एक भव्य व पवित्र लक्ष्य के आधारपर, अनेक भौगोलिक, भाशिक व पांथिक विविधताओंसे सुशोभित अपने समाज को एकात्मता व मर्यादा के दृढ सूत्र में गूँथकर भेदरहित बनाने का यह अवसर मिला हें। इसीलिये इस अवसर पर इस देश के मुसलमानोंसहित अपने समाज के सभी वर्गोको हमारा हार्दिक तथा आत्मीयतापूर्ण आवाहन हैं कि गत दषकों में चले अनेक विवादों की कटुता, हृदयोंकी विषमता व असहजता को भूलकर न्यायालय के निर्णय का स्वागत करते हुए श्रीरामजन्मभूमिपर मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम श्रीराम के भव्य मंदिर के निर्माण की संवैधानिक व व्यावहारिक व्यवस्थाएँ निर्माण करने के अभियान में मिलजुलकर सहयोगी बने।
BRIEF SUMMARYD:\AYODHYA VERDICT
1
BRIEF SUMMARY
Subject matter of the decided cases
OOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others
were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on
the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.
Government of India decided to acquire all area of the
disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex
court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.
OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others
Versus
Gopal Singh Visharad and others
The instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961
and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for
possession was added.
Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934
during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of
Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.
The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and
thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of
possession beyond the period of limitation.
2
On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were
filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed
after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.
report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of
religious nature.
On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of
India massive structure of religious nature is required to be
maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument
Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court in
Rajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21 directed
the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to
maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .
On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not
only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people
used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped
from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise
finding is as under;
O.O.S. No.
4 of 1989
Issues No. 1 and 1(a)
1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the
sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as
the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If
the answer is in the affirmative?
1(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged
by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant
No. 13?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
3
Issues No. 1(b)
1(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an
alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs
on the basis of A.S.I. Report.
1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was
an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the
plaint? If so, its effect?
Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 1(B)a
1-B(a). Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known
as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so
its effect thereon)”
Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.
Issues No. 1(B)(b)
1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as
alleged by the plaintiffs?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(c)
1-B (c ).Whether the building had been used by the members of the
Muslim community for offering prayers from times
immemorial ? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(d)
1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the
members of Muslim community for burying the dead
bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,
its effect?
4
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28
2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in
suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949
as alleged in the plaint?
4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan
Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the
site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more
than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as
alleged by the defendants?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?
15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge
of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?
28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of
the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its
possession?”
These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 3
3. Is the suit within time?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 5(a)
5(a) Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character
of property in suit as a waqf under the administration of
plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act
13 of 1936?
(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).
Issues No. 5(b)
5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and defendants in particular, to the right of their
worship?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
5
Issues No. 5(c)
5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?
(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)
Issues No. 5(d)
5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as
alleged in written statement?
(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,
hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his
order dated 21.4.1966).
Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)
5(e). Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil
Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to the effect that, “No
valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act
(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property
in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no
right to maintain the present suit?
5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on
accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed
after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?
Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issue No. 6
6. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants
representing the interest of the Hindus?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 7(a)
7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280
of 1885 had sued on behalf of Janma-Sthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
6
Issue No. 7(b)
7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged
Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of
any such mosque?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 7(c)
7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the
members of the Hindu community, including the contesting
defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the
Muslim community, including the plaintiffs of the present
suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 7(d)
7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as
res judicate against the defendants in suit?
Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not
operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.
Issue No.9
9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80
C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).
7
Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)
11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?
13. Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular
had the right to worship the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and
other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in
or upon the property in suit?
14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
19(a).Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities
of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on
behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said places continued to
be visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,
whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said
deities?
19(c). Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a
place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the
construction of the building in question? If the finding is in
the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence
in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.12
12. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the
building in the night intervening 22nd and 23rd December,
1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have
been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?
Idols were installed in the building in the intervening
night of 22/23rd December, 1949.
8
Issue No.17
17. Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the property in
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
(This issue has already been decided by the learned Civil
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).
Issue No.18
18. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue
no. 17?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issue No.19(b)
19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its
effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.19(d)
19(d). Whether the building in question could not be a mosque
under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it
did not have minarets?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 19(e)
19(e).Whether the building in question could not legally be a
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a
9
graveyard on three sides.
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No.19(F)
19(F).Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question
contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding
is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in
question cannot have the character of Mosque under the
tenets of Islam?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.20(a)
20(a). Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the
building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni
Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi
who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalis
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.20(b)
20(b). Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and
whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the
suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for
possession?
Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour
of the defendants.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
10
Issues No. 23 & 24
23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,
whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any
suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of
particular community and against the interest of another
community)”.
Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not
maintainable.
Issues No. 25 & 26
25. “Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by
the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether
the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no
longer maintainable?”
26. “Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been
demolished?”
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 27
27. “Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”
Yes, issue is decided in positive.
Issue No.16 & 22
16. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?
Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.
11
O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others
The instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father
of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.
Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the
defendants including the State Government to not disallow the
plaintiff to touch the deity.
State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order
to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.
The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State
Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest
to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan
of the deity.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
1 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 2 and 6
1. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram
Chandra Ji?
2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?
6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?
Connected with issues No. 1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-e
and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.
Issues No. 3, 4 & 7
3. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and
the idols situated in the place in suit.?
12
4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in
suit.?
7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528A.D.?
Connected with Issues No. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues have been decided in favour of
defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)
9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?
(a) Has the said act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and plaintiff of the present suit, in particular to his
right of worship.?
(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires
for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?
Connected with Issues No. 5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,
17(issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)
5(a) Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of
1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das
Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others.?
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?
Connected with issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 of
1989.
Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.
13
Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)
5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and
were all Hindus interest in the same.?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of
Resjudicata and in any other way?
Connected with issue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 in
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have been
decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 13
13. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief
Act.?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)
11(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present
suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of consent in writing by the
advocate general ?
11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 12
12. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Withdrawn, no finding is required.
14
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?
NO
Issue No. 10
10. Is the present suit barred by time ?
NO
Issue No. 16 & 17
16. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs
under section 35-A C.P.C.?
17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?
Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
dismissed with easy costs.
15
OOS No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.
The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right
from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.
Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to
the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.
The defendants have contested the claim and this Court
found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff
failed to prove the case.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
3 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 5 and 6
1. Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?
5. Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar
Known as Babari masjid ?
6. Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for
worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf
property?
Connected with Issues No. 1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues
have been decided in favour of defendants and against the
plaintiffs.
Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8
2. Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?
3. Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12
years ?
4. Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the
said temple ?
16
8. Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of
possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?
Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 16
7(a) Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act (Act
no.13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?
7(b) Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.
16. Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of
1936 ?
Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of
1989, wherein these issues have been decided against the
plaintiffs.
Issue No. 9
9. Is the suit within time ?
Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)
10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.
10(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 11
11. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?
Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
17
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 17
17. (Added by this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96) “Whether
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi
sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination
following its religious faith and per suit according to its own
custom.”
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?
(Already decided)
Issues No. 12 & 13
12. Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?
No.
13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
Suit is Dismissed.
18
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (R.S.NO. 236/1989
Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.
The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri
Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the
defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the
temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are
perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm
Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like
Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of
divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as
a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex
Court specially the law as laid down in 1999(5) SCC page 50,
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur
Radhabhallabhji and others & other decisions of Privy Council
and of different High Courts.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:
O.O.S. No.
5 of 1989
19
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 6
1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?
2. Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the
plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through
plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?
6. Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1
and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this
account ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 22
9. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri
Masjid ?
10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the
plaint ?
14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?
22. Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by
tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as
alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? If so, its
effect ?
Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),
19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 24
15. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering
20
Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To
22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &
2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?
24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity
on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the plaint?
Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),
19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.
Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf
Board and Others.
Issue No.17
17. Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structure
in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?
Deleted vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.23
23. Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by
Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge,
Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the
principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
Issue No.5
(5) Is the property in question properly identified and described
21
in the plaint ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issues No. 7 & 8
(7) Whether the defendant no. 3, alone is entitled to represent
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that
account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 ?
(8) Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan
Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?
Decided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.
Issues No.19
19. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,
as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written
statement of defendant no. 3 ?
Suit is maintainable.
Issue No.20
20. Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.
21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47
of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant no.3.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities
as alleged in paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 21, 22, 27 and 41 of the
written statement of defendant no. 4 and in paragraph 1 of
the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?
22
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants no. 4 and 5.
Issues No. 26 & 27
26. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?
27. Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.
Issue No.25
25. Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946
passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.29
29. Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the
present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the Court of Munsif
Sadar, Faizabad?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.28
28. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65
of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants
4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants
no. 4 and 5.
23
Issue No.18
18. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the the Specific
Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 and also as alleged in
paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and
paragraph 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4
3(a) Whether the idol in question was installed under the central
dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early
hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified on 30.4.92 in their
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?
3(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a
chabutra under the canopy?
3(c) “Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?
3(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether
the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?”
(4) Whether the idols in question had been in existence under the
“Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged
in paragraph-44 of the additional written statement of
defendant no. 3 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.11
(11) Whether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the
plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure in
24
dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.12
(12) If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the same
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?
Deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.13
(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.30
30. To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?
Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
decreed with easy costs.
BRIEF SUMMARY
Subject matter of the decided cases
OOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others
were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on
the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.
Government of India decided to acquire all area of the
disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex
court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.
OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others
Versus
Gopal Singh Visharad and others
The instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961
and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for
possession was added.
Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934
during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of
Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.
The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and
thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of
possession beyond the period of limitation.
2
On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were
filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed
after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.
report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of
religious nature.
On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of
India massive structure of religious nature is required to be
maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument
Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court in
Rajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21 directed
the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to
maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .
On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not
only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people
used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped
from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise
finding is as under;
O.O.S. No.
4 of 1989
Issues No. 1 and 1(a)
1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the
sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as
the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If
the answer is in the affirmative?
1(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged
by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant
No. 13?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
3
Issues No. 1(b)
1(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an
alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs
on the basis of A.S.I. Report.
1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was
an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the
plaint? If so, its effect?
Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 1(B)a
1-B(a). Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known
as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so
its effect thereon)”
Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.
Issues No. 1(B)(b)
1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as
alleged by the plaintiffs?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(c)
1-B (c ).Whether the building had been used by the members of the
Muslim community for offering prayers from times
immemorial ? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(d)
1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the
members of Muslim community for burying the dead
bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,
its effect?
4
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28
2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in
suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949
as alleged in the plaint?
4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan
Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the
site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more
than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as
alleged by the defendants?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?
15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge
of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?
28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of
the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its
possession?”
These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 3
3. Is the suit within time?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 5(a)
5(a) Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character
of property in suit as a waqf under the administration of
plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act
13 of 1936?
(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).
Issues No. 5(b)
5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and defendants in particular, to the right of their
worship?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
5
Issues No. 5(c)
5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?
(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)
Issues No. 5(d)
5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as
alleged in written statement?
(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,
hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his
order dated 21.4.1966).
Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)
5(e). Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil
Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to the effect that, “No
valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act
(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property
in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no
right to maintain the present suit?
5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on
accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed
after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?
Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issue No. 6
6. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants
representing the interest of the Hindus?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 7(a)
7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280
of 1885 had sued on behalf of Janma-Sthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
6
Issue No. 7(b)
7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged
Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of
any such mosque?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 7(c)
7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the
members of the Hindu community, including the contesting
defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the
Muslim community, including the plaintiffs of the present
suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 7(d)
7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as
res judicate against the defendants in suit?
Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not
operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.
Issue No.9
9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80
C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).
7
Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)
11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?
13. Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular
had the right to worship the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and
other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in
or upon the property in suit?
14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
19(a).Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities
of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on
behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said places continued to
be visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,
whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said
deities?
19(c). Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a
place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the
construction of the building in question? If the finding is in
the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence
in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.12
12. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the
building in the night intervening 22nd and 23rd December,
1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have
been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?
Idols were installed in the building in the intervening
night of 22/23rd December, 1949.
8
Issue No.17
17. Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the property in
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
(This issue has already been decided by the learned Civil
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).
Issue No.18
18. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue
no. 17?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issue No.19(b)
19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its
effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.19(d)
19(d). Whether the building in question could not be a mosque
under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it
did not have minarets?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 19(e)
19(e).Whether the building in question could not legally be a
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a
9
graveyard on three sides.
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No.19(F)
19(F).Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question
contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding
is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in
question cannot have the character of Mosque under the
tenets of Islam?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.20(a)
20(a). Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the
building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni
Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi
who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalis
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.20(b)
20(b). Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and
whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the
suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for
possession?
Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour
of the defendants.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
10
Issues No. 23 & 24
23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,
whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any
suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of
particular community and against the interest of another
community)”.
Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not
maintainable.
Issues No. 25 & 26
25. “Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by
the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether
the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no
longer maintainable?”
26. “Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been
demolished?”
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 27
27. “Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”
Yes, issue is decided in positive.
Issue No.16 & 22
16. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?
Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.
11
O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others
The instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father
of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.
Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the
defendants including the State Government to not disallow the
plaintiff to touch the deity.
State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order
to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.
The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State
Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest
to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan
of the deity.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
1 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 2 and 6
1. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram
Chandra Ji?
2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?
6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?
Connected with issues No. 1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-e
and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.
Issues No. 3, 4 & 7
3. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and
the idols situated in the place in suit.?
12
4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in
suit.?
7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528A.D.?
Connected with Issues No. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues have been decided in favour of
defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)
9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?
(a) Has the said act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and plaintiff of the present suit, in particular to his
right of worship.?
(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires
for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?
Connected with Issues No. 5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,
17(issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)
5(a) Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of
1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das
Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others.?
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?
Connected with issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 of
1989.
Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.
13
Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)
5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and
were all Hindus interest in the same.?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of
Resjudicata and in any other way?
Connected with issue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 in
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have been
decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 13
13. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief
Act.?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)
11(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present
suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of consent in writing by the
advocate general ?
11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 12
12. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Withdrawn, no finding is required.
14
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?
NO
Issue No. 10
10. Is the present suit barred by time ?
NO
Issue No. 16 & 17
16. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs
under section 35-A C.P.C.?
17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?
Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
dismissed with easy costs.
15
OOS No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.
The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right
from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.
Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to
the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.
The defendants have contested the claim and this Court
found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff
failed to prove the case.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
3 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 5 and 6
1. Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?
5. Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar
Known as Babari masjid ?
6. Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for
worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf
property?
Connected with Issues No. 1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues
have been decided in favour of defendants and against the
plaintiffs.
Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8
2. Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?
3. Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12
years ?
4. Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the
said temple ?
16
8. Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of
possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?
Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 16
7(a) Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act (Act
no.13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?
7(b) Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.
16. Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of
1936 ?
Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of
1989, wherein these issues have been decided against the
plaintiffs.
Issue No. 9
9. Is the suit within time ?
Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)
10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.
10(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 11
11. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?
Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
17
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 17
17. (Added by this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96) “Whether
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi
sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination
following its religious faith and per suit according to its own
custom.”
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?
(Already decided)
Issues No. 12 & 13
12. Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?
No.
13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
Suit is Dismissed.
18
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (R.S.NO. 236/1989
Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.
The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri
Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the
defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the
temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are
perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm
Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like
Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of
divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as
a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex
Court specially the law as laid down in 1999(5) SCC page 50,
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur
Radhabhallabhji and others & other decisions of Privy Council
and of different High Courts.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:
O.O.S. No.
5 of 1989
19
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 6
1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?
2. Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the
plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through
plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?
6. Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1
and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this
account ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 22
9. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri
Masjid ?
10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the
plaint ?
14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?
22. Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by
tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as
alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? If so, its
effect ?
Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),
19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 24
15. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering
20
Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To
22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &
2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?
24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity
on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the plaint?
Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),
19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.
Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf
Board and Others.
Issue No.17
17. Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structure
in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?
Deleted vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.23
23. Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by
Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge,
Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the
principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
Issue No.5
(5) Is the property in question properly identified and described
21
in the plaint ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issues No. 7 & 8
(7) Whether the defendant no. 3, alone is entitled to represent
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that
account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 ?
(8) Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan
Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?
Decided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.
Issues No.19
19. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,
as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written
statement of defendant no. 3 ?
Suit is maintainable.
Issue No.20
20. Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.
21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47
of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant no.3.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities
as alleged in paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 21, 22, 27 and 41 of the
written statement of defendant no. 4 and in paragraph 1 of
the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?
22
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants no. 4 and 5.
Issues No. 26 & 27
26. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?
27. Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.
Issue No.25
25. Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946
passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.29
29. Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the
present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the Court of Munsif
Sadar, Faizabad?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.28
28. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65
of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants
4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants
no. 4 and 5.
23
Issue No.18
18. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the the Specific
Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 and also as alleged in
paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and
paragraph 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4
3(a) Whether the idol in question was installed under the central
dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early
hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified on 30.4.92 in their
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?
3(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a
chabutra under the canopy?
3(c) “Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?
3(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether
the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?”
(4) Whether the idols in question had been in existence under the
“Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged
in paragraph-44 of the additional written statement of
defendant no. 3 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.11
(11) Whether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the
plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure in
24
dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.12
(12) If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the same
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?
Deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.13
(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.30
30. To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?
Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
decreed with easy costs.
ISSUES FOR BRIEFINGD:AYODHYA VERDICT
1
ISSUES FOR BRIEFING
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan
Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of
birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the
spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a
child.
Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless
also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When
was it built? By whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year
is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it
cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a
Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old
structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological
Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive
Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the
night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed
structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
2
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs
U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others
and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri
Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner
and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of
Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the
right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object
of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also
established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in
dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as
a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.
After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the
deities were installed inside the disputed structure on
22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in
exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping
throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed
structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that
the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it
came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
*********
ISSUES FOR BRIEFING
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan
Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of
birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the
spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a
child.
Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless
also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When
was it built? By whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year
is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it
cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a
Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old
structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological
Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive
Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the
night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed
structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
2
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs
U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others
and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri
Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner
and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of
Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the
right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object
of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also
established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in
dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as
a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.
After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the
deities were installed inside the disputed structure on
22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in
exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping
throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed
structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that
the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it
came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
*********
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion
belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was
constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by
Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth
place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area
within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises
in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were
there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the
mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well
as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus
were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to
formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of
Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the
Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord
Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early
hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession
of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition
that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree
the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to
the share of the Hindus.
Order:-
Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are
declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F
in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in
Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the
idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is
shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third
share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be
made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by
allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds
within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree
after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui
(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless
this order is modified or vacated earlier.
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion
belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was
constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by
Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth
place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area
within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises
in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were
there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the
mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well
as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus
were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to
formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of
Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the
Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord
Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early
hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession
of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition
that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree
the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to
the share of the Hindus.
Order:-
Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are
declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F
in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in
Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the
idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is
shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third
share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be
made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by
allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds
within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree
after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui
(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless
this order is modified or vacated earlier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)