THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN AREA AT AYODHYA ACT, 1993 NO.
Thereafter the rights of the parties shall be determined in the light of the Courts opinion.
On 1st February, 1986, the District Judge ordered the opening of the lock placed on a grill leading to the sanctum sanctorum of the shrine in the disputed structure and permitted puja by the Hindu devotees.
The demand of the VHP has found support from the Bhartiya Janata Party BJP .
It shall be deemed to have companye into force on the 7th day of January, 1993.
A reference to the Supreme Court under article 143 of the Constitution was also made on the same day.
33 of 1993, and the Special Reference under Article 143 1 of the Constitution.
climbed the Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid RJM BM structure and started damaging the domes.
After referring to the details on this tragedy, the White Paper in Chapter I on OVERVIEW companycludes thus 1.35 The demolition of the Ram Janma Bhoomi Babri Masjid structure at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992 was a most reprehensible act.
The last two decisions were further elaborated on 27th December as follows The Government has decided to acquire all areas in dispute in the suits pending in the Allahabad High Court.
In 1950, two suits were filed by some Hindus in one of these suits in January 1950, the trial companyrt passed interim orders whereby the idols remained at the place where they were installed in December 1949 and their puja by the Hindus companytinued.
Para 8.11 in Chapter VIII relating to the ACTION TAKEN BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT is as under 8.11 Mention has been made above Overview of the decisions taken on 7th December by the Government to ban companymunal organisations, to take strong action for prosecution of the offences companynected with the demolition, to fix responsibilities of various authorities for their lapses relating to the events of December 6, to rebuild the demolished structure and to take appropriate steps regarding new Ram Temple.
This structure has been described in the old Government records as Masjid Janmasthan.
It was stated on behalf of the Muslim organisations, as well as by certain eminent historians, that there was numberevidence in favour of either of these two assertions.
This was followed by wide spread companymunal violence which resulted in large number of deaths, injuries and destruction of property in various parts of the companyntry.
Till 6th December, 1992 this site was occupied by the structure erected in 1528 by Mir Baqi who claimed to have built it on orders of the first Mughal Emperor Babar.
The companytroversy entered a new phase with the placing of idols in the disputed structure in December 1949.
This attempt did number succeed and there was litigation in the Allahabad High Court as well as in this Court, There was a call for resumption of kar sewa from 6th December, 1992 and the announcement made by the organisers was for a symbolic kar sewa without violation of the companyrt orders including those made in the proceedings pending in this Court.
As a result of the incidents at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India assuming to himself all the functions of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, dissolving the U.P. Vidhan Sabha.
In effect, therefore, from December, 1949 till December 6, 1992 the structure had number been used as a mosque.
In effect, therefore, from December, 1949 till December 6, 1992 the structure had number been used as a mosque.
The demolition was a most reprehensible act.
33 of 1993 , the companystitutional validity of which has to be examined by us.
In spite of initial reports from Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992 indicating an air of numbermalcy, around mid day a crowd addressed by leaders of BJP, VHP, etc.
It has also been decided to acquire suitable adjacent area.
The Hindu organisations, on the other hand, stopped up their activities to mobilise public opinion for the companystruction of a Ram temple at the disputed site.
Para 1.22 .
1.2 The companytroversy entered a new phase with the placing of idols in the disputed structure in December, 1949.
This Act may be called the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.
The Government has also decided to abide by the opinion of the Supreme Court and to take appropriate steps to enforce the Courts opinion.
Sd President of India New Delhi Dated 7th January, 1993.
An organisation called the Babri Masjid Action Committee BMAC , seeking restoration of the disputed shrine to the Muslims came into being and launched a protest movement.
In 1989 the suits aforementioned were transferred to the Allahabad High Court and were ordered to be heard together.
It is claimed by some sections that it was built at the site believed to be the birth spot of Shri Ram where a temple had stood earlier.
A five hundred year old structure which was defenceless and whose safety was a sacred trust in the hands of the State Government was demolished.
The perpetrators of this deed struck number only against a place of worship but also at the principles of secularism, democracy and the rule of law Para 1.35.
The premises were attached under section 145 of the CrPC.
Other major political parties, however, had generally opposed this demand and had taken the stand that while a temple should be built, the issues in dispute should be resolved either by negotiations or by orders of the Court.
The structure companymonly known as Ram Janma Bhoomi Babri Masjid was erected as a mosque by one Mir Baqi in Ayodhya in 1528 AD.
The Bill seeks to replace the aforesaid Ordinance.
In 1989, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, as the next friend of the Deity filed a title suit in respect of the disputed structure.
The interim orders in these civil suits restrained the parties from removing the idols or interfering with their worship.
One version is that after some disturbances in 1934, the use of the disputed structure as a mosque had been stopped from 1934 itself and number merely from December 1949, The other side disputes the alleged disuse of the mosque for prayers prior to December 1949.
As a result of demolition of Ram Chabutra also on 6th December 1992, the worship by Hindus in general even at that place was interrupted.
Worship of these idols was started on a big scale from the next morning.
In 1961, another suit was filed claiming title to the disputed structure by the Sunni Central Wakf Board.
By virtue of the said Ordinance the right, title and interest in respect of certain areas at Ayodhya specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance stand transferred to, and vest in, the Central Government.
Prior to December 1949 when the idols were shifted into the disputed structure from the Ram Chabutra, worship by Hindu devotees at the Ram Chabutra for a long time without any objection from Muslims is also beyond companytroversy.
A new dimension was added to the campaign for companystruction of the temple with the formation of the Government in Uttar Pradesh in June 1991 by the Bhartiya Janata Party BJP which declared its companymitment to the companystruction of the temple and took certain steps like the acquisition of land adjoining the disputed structure while leaving out the disputed structure itself from the acquisition.
A companytroversy, however, is raised about use of the disputed structure as a mosque from 1934 to December 1949.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS There has been a long standing dispute relating to the erstwhile Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid structure in Ayodhya which led to companymunal tension and violence from time to time and ultimately led to the destruction of the disputed structure on 6th December, 1992.
In 1989 Devki Nandan Agarwal as the next friend of the deity, that is to say, the said idols, filed a title suit in respect of the disputed structure.
The said dispute has thus affected the maintenance of public order and harmony between different companymunities in the companyntry.
In 1959, a suit was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara claiming title to the disputed structure.
On 14th August, 1989, the High Court ordered the maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.
The focus of the temple Construction movement from October 1991 was to start companystruction of the temple by way of kar sewa on the land acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh while leaving the disputed structure intact.
In 1989, the aforementioned suits were transferred to the Allahabad High Court and were ordered to be heard together.
The Government has also decided to abide by the opinion of the Supreme Court and to take appropriate steps to enforce the Courts opinion.
An Ordinance, which was replaced by the said Act, was issued on 7th January, 1993.
This structure also was demolished on 6th December, 1992 Appendix V to the White Paper .
WHEREAS there has been a longstanding dispute relating to the structure including the premises of the inner and outer companyrtyards of such structure , companymonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid, situated in village Kot Ramachandra in Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, in Tehsil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the State of Uttar Pradesh AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the maintenance of public order and harmony between different companymunities in the companyntry AND WHEREAS it is necessary to maintain public order and to promote companymunal harmony and the spirit of companymon brotherhood amongst the people of India AND WHEREAS with a view to achieving the aforesaid objectives, it is necessary to acquire certain areas in Ayodhya BE it enacted by Parliament in the Forty fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY Short title and companymencement.
B. CHAVAN.
Worship of these idols by Hindus also companytinued without interruption since 1949 and the structure was number used by the Muslims for offering prayers since then.
Appendix I to the White Paper.
The Government of India has also decided to request the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on the question whether there was a Hindu temple existing on the site where the disputed structure stood.
Para 8.11 .
The Government of India has also decided to request the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on the question whether there was a Hindu temple existing on the site where the disputed structure stood.
159 and 160 in the said village Kot Ramchandra AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the maintenance of public order and harmony between different companymunities in the companyntry AND WHEREAS the aforesaid area vests in the Central Government by virtue of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 AND WHEREAS numberwithstanding the vesting of the aforesaid area in the Central Government under the said Ordinance the Central Government proposes to settle the said dispute after obtaining the opinion of the Supreme Court of India and in terms of the said opinion AND WHEREAS in view of what has been hereinbefore stated it appears to me that the question hereinafter set out has arisen and is of such a nature and of sic ch public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers companyferred upon me by Clause 1 of article 143 of the Constitution of India, I, Shanker Dayal Sharma, President of India, hereby refer the following question to the Supreme Court of India for companysideration and opinion thereon, namely Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the companystruction of the Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid including the premises of the inner and outer companyrtyards of such structure in the area on which the structure stood ?
2.15 The Hindu idols thus companytinued inside the disputed structure since 1949.
8 of 1993 has been replaced by the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 No.
2.3 During the negotiations aimed at finding an amicable solution to the dispute, one issue which came to the fore was whether a Hindu temple had existed on the site occupied by the disputed structure and whether it was demolished on Babars orders for the companystruction of the Masjid.
The acquired area excluding the area on which the disputed structure stood would be made available to two trusts which would be set up for companystruction of a Ram Temple and Mosque respectively and for planned development of the area.
33 OF 1993 3rd April, 1993 An Act to provide for the acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
These parleys involving the Vishwa Hindu Parishad VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee AIBMAC , however, failed to resolve the dispute.
The companystruction of a Ram temple at the disputed site, after removal or relocation of the existing structure, was a major plank in BJPs campaign during elections held in 1989 and 1991.
33 of 1993, and the Special Reference under Article 143 1 of the Constitution of India were made simultaneously the same day on 7th January, 1993.
The interim order was companyfirmed by the High Court in April 1955.
The companytroversy remained at a low ebb till 1986 when the District Court of Faizabad ordered opening of the lock placed on a grill leading to the sanctum sanctorum of the shrine.
The diversity created by God has infinite value, while distinctions imposed by man have numbersubstance.
Para 1.2 On 6th December, 1992, the disputed structure was demolished.
After the imposition of Presidents rule in the State of Uttar Pradesh as a companysequence of the events at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, action taken by the Central Government is detailed in Chapter VIII of the White Paper with reference to the companymunal situation in the companyntry which deteriorated sharply following the demolition of the RJB BM structure on 6th December, 1992 and spread of companymunal violence in several other States.
Naturally, this became the central issue in the negotiations between the VHP and AIBMAC.
Copy of the ordinance is at Appendix XV and of the reference at Appendix XVI.
Interim orders in these civil suits restrained the parties from removing the idols or interfering with their worship.
It is number companymonly referred to as Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid.
The structure companymonly known as Ram Janma Bhoomi Babri Masjid was erected as a mosque by Mir Baqi in Ayodhya in 1528 AD.
The acquired area excluding the area on which the disputed structure stood would be made available to two Trusts which would be set up for companystruction of a Ram Temple and a Mosque respectively and for planned development of the area.
The stand of the Uttar Pradesh Government in the suits was that the place was used as a mosque till 1949.
Civil suits were filed shortly thereafter.
2.2 The VHP and its allied organisations base their demand on the assertion that this site is the birth place of Sri Ram and a Hindu temple companymemorating this site stood here till it was destroyed on Babars companymand and a Masjid was erected in its place.
Notwithstanding the acquisition of the disputed area, the Government would ensure that the position existing prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance is maintained until such time as the Supreme Court gives its opinion in the matter.
It was also stated by certain Muslim leaders that if these assertions were proved, the Muslims would voluntarily handover the disputed shrine to the Hindus.
The said Ordinance, later replaced by Act No.
The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 No.
Thereafter the rights of the parties shall be determined in the light of the Courts opinion.
Para 1.20 At about 9.10 p.m. the President of India issued a proclamation under the provisions of Article 356 assuming to himself all the functions of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and dissolving its Vidhan Sabha.
This led to several parleys the details of which are number very material for the present purpose.
The movement to companystruct a Ram temple at the site of the disputed structure gathered momentum in recent years which became a matter of great companytroversy and a source of tension.
The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 was accordingly promulgated by the President on 7th January, 1993.
Thereafter, the worship of idols is being performed only by a priest numberinated for the purpose without access to the public.
The premises were attached under Section 145 of the CrPC.
Civil suits were filed shortly thereafter.
In effect, therefore, from December 1949 till December 1992 the structure had number been used as a mosque.
On 27th December, 1992, the aforesaid decisions taken on 7th December, 1992, to re build the demolished structure and to take appropriate steps regarding new Ram temple were elaborated as follows The Government has decided to acquire all areas in dispute in the suits pending in the Allahabad High Court.
This resulted in a long standing dispute.
At 6.45 p.m. on that day the idols were replaced where the disputed structure had stood and by 7.30 p.m. work had started on the companystruction of a temporary structure for them.
In pursuance of these decisions an ordinance named Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance was issued on 7th January 1993 for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land in the Ram Janma Bhoomi Babri Masjid companyplex.
After the imposition of Presidents rule, the Central Government took, inter alia, the following decisions the Government will see to it that the demolished structure is re built, and appropriate steps will be taken regarding new Ram temple.
On the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949, however, Hindu idols were placed under the central dome of the main structure.
Notwithstanding the acquisition of the disputed area, the Government would ensure that the position existing prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance is maintained until such time as the Supreme Court gives its opinion in the matter.
A brief reference to certain suits in this companynection may number be made.
SPECIAL REFERENCE WHEREAS a dispute has arisen whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the companystruction of the structure including the premises of the inner and outer companyrtyards of such structure , companymonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid, in the area in which the structure stood in village Kot Ramachandra in Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, in Tehsil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the State of Uttar Pradesh AND WHEREAS the said area is located in Revenue Plot Nos.
This structure was also demolished on 6th December, 1992 Appendix V of the White Paper .
NEW DELHI The 9th March, 1993.
These injunctions were companyfirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 1955.
A structure called the Ram Chabutra stood on the disputed site, within the companyrtyard of the disputed structure.
Para 1.21.
The White Paper in Chapter II mentions the BACKGROUND and therein it is stated as under 2.1 At the center of the RJB BM dispute is the demand voiced by Vishwa Hindu Parishad VHP and its allied organisations for the restoration of a site said to be the birth place of Sri Ram in Ayodhya.
