Ayodhya dispute: parties satisfied with SC order
The Supreme Court has stayed the Allahabad High Court's verdict on Ayodhya title dispute.
New Delhi: Various parties to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit on Monday expressed satisfaction over the Supreme Court order staying the Allahabad High Court direction for tripartite division of the disputed land.
The counsel for various parties, including Lord Rama Lalla Virajman, Hindu Maha Sabha and Sunni Waqf Board, expressed satisfaction over the apex court's interim order saying that none of the parties had sought division of the 2.77 acre land.
"There will be no change of situation at ground zero (the make-shift temple of Ram Lalla). The pooja will continue as per the January 7, 1993 order," senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad, who is representing Ram Lalla Virajman, told reporters in apex court premises after the hearing on the Ayodhya dispute.
After the demolition of the masjid on December 6, 1992, the demonstrators created a makeshift temple. On January 7, 1993, the Congress government enacted the Ayodhya Act 1993 which preserved the status quo of the destroyed mosque and limited prayer on the disputed site.
Sunni Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani said, "We are satisfied with today's order of the Supreme Court...This will help in maintaining peaceful position in the country."
"Everybody had claimed for exclusive rights, so Supreme Court is completely justified in staying the high court judgement," he said, adding, "Sunni Waqf board will ask the court to expedite its hearing in the case."
Expressing satisfaction over the apex court order, counsel representing Hindu Maha Sabha said, "Nobody prayed for it (partition of land into three parts). Everybody wanted full land. Our stand continues that entire Janmabhoomi premise belongs to the Hindu Maha Sabha."
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad High Court's verdict dividing in three parts the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, terming as "something strange" the judgement although the parties had not asked for trifurcation of the land.
The court, while staying the September 30, 2010 judgement of the Lucknow bench of the high court, ordered status quo at the site.
Recommended For You
- Man Purposely Damages Tesla Model S to Save a Life, Gets Compensation
- Running Shaadi Review: It's Weighed Down by Choppy Editing, Inconsistent Screenplay
- News18 Movie Awards 2017: Nominees For Best Singer (Female)
- Jaguar XE, XF and F-Pace Owners Can Soon Pay for Fuel Through Their Infotainment System
- News18 Movie Awards 2017: Nominees For Best Singer (Male)