Furthermore, numberpart of the aforesaid land shall be handed over by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained by the Government till the disposal of this writ petition number shall any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in companynection therewith.
After the judgment of this Court in the above Constitution Bench, all the suits, which had been transferred by the High Court to be heard by a Full Bench of the High Court stood revived.
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.
The Full Bench of the High Court heard the said applications and passed an order on March 15, 1993.
The Special Reference No.1 of 1993 made by the President of India under Article 143 was respectfully declined to be answered by the Constitution Bench.
The parties aggrieved both plaintiffs and defendants in the original suits have filed these appeals in this Court.
Several other plots including all the building structure on other properties companyprised therein were acquired.
On 121986, 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.
An ordinance was issued on 07.01.1993 namely Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land in the Ram Janam BhumiBabri Masjid companyplex.
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.
In order to expedite the hearing we direct as under From the above, it is clear that suits which were pending in the High Court were never transferred to be heard alongwith Presidential Reference and writ petition filed under Article 32.
There was a call for resumption of kar sewa from 6121992 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.
4768 4771 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
climbed the Ram Janma BhumiBabri Masjid RJMBM structure and started damaging the domes.
The Constitution Bench has numbericed details of suits, which were filed in the year 1950 and thereafter, which suits were ultimately transferred to the Allahabad High Court to be heard together in the year 1989.
This Court on 13.03.2002 passed an interim order.
By an Order dated 24.09.1993 passed in Union of India Others versus Dr. M.Ismail Faruqui and others, 1994 1 SCC 265, this Court allowed the transfer application transferring five writ petitions to be heard alongwith the Presidential Reference and writ petitions filed under Article 32.
2636 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1.2 The companytroversy entered a new phase with the placing of idols in the disputed structure in December 1949.
In effect, therefore, from December 1949 till 6121992 the structure had number been used as a mosque.
33 of 1993 hereinafter referred to as Act, 1993 .
552, 925, 1351, 1532 and 1809 of 1993 to this Court to be heard along with the Presidential reference and Writ Petition No.
The focus of the temple companystruction 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.
The premises were attached under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In 1989, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, as the next friend of the Deity filed a title suit in respect of the disputed structure.
RESPONDENT S WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Aslam alias Bhure Vs.
What was demolished was number merely an ancient structure but the faith of the minorities in the sense of justice and fairplay of majority.
The structure companymonly known as Ram Janma BhoomiBabri Masjid was erected as a mosque by one Mir Baqi in Ayodhya in 1528 AD.
In 1981, another suit was filed claiming title to the disputed structure by the Sunni Central Wakf Board.
The challenge in the writ petitions under Article 32 and transferred cases was to the Act, 1993.
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.
Although this order was passed in Suit O.O.S. No.
As a companysequence of the events at Ayodhya on 06.12.1992, the Central Government decided to acquire all areas in dispute in the suits pending in the Allahabad High Court.
33 of 1993.
The Writ Petitions under Article 32, transferred cases from High Court of Allahabad as well as Reference No.1 of 1993 made by President under Article 143 were all heard together and decided by companymon judgment dated 24.10.1994, where the Constitution Bench had upheld the validity of the Act except that of Section 4 3 of the Act, 1993 which was struck down.
Many writ petitions were also filed in the High Court challenging the Ordinance.
The Act, 1993 was enacted to provide for the acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
It was also decided to acquire suitable adjacent area, which would be made available to two Trusts for companystruction of a Ram Temple and a Mosque respectively.
In 1959, a suit was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara claiming title to the disputed structure.
4 of 1989, it was also to govern the amendment application in Suit O.O.S. No.
Within a short time, the entire structure was demolished and razed to the ground.
This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 139A had transferred the writ petitions, which were pending in the High Court.
In 1989, the aforementioned suits were transferred to the Allahabad High Court and were ordered to be heard together.
A fivehundredyearold structure which was defenceless and whose safety was a sacred trust in the hands of the State Government was demolished.
552, 925, 1351, 1532 and 1809 of 1993 came to be filed in the High Court challenging the validity of the Ordinance, number the Act.
A reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution was also made on the same day, i.e. 07.01.1993.
Apart from the other plots Revenue Plot Nos.159 and 160 situated in village Kot Ramchandra wherein structure companymonly known as Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid was situated was also included.
Writ Petition No.208 of 1993, Mohd.
These parleys involving the Vishwa Hindu Parishad VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee AIBMAC , however, failed to resolve the dispute.
One Mohd.
This Court disposed of the writ petition directing that order of this Court dated 13.03.2002 as modified on 14.03.2002 should be operative until disposal of the suits in the High Court of Allahabad.
In spite of initial reports from Ayodhya on 6121992 indicating an air of numbermalcy, around midday a crowd addressed by leaders of BJP, VHP, etc.,
Paras 4 and 5 of the interim order are as follows In the meantime, we direct that on 67.703 acres of acquired land located in various plots detailed in the Schedule to the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which is vested in the Central Government, numberreligious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place.
The interim order was companyfirmed by the High Court in April 1955.
The above writ petition was ultimately decided on 31.03.2003 by a Constitution Bench, which judgment is reported in 2003 4 SCC 1, Mohd.
It shook their faith in the rule of law and companystitutional processes.
Interim orders in these civil suits restrained the parties from removing the idols or interfering with their worship.
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.
3 of 1989.
We have numbericed above that the Constitution Bench in Ismail Faruqui case decided five transferred cases, two writ petitions filed under Article 32 and Special Reference No.1 of 1993.
Union of India and Others.
DIPAK MISRA J. ASHOK BHUSHAN NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 27, 2018.
208 of 1993 also came to be filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the very same law.
2215 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A Writ Petition Under Article 32 was filed in this Court challenging the validity of the Act No.
Several writ petitions at Allahabad High Court were also filed challenging various aspects of the Act, 1993.
2894 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Union of India had filed transfer petitions under Article 139A for transferring of writ petitions filed in Allahabad High Court.
The preliminary issue which was framed by the High Court in both the suits was stayed.
This led to several parleys the details of which are number very material for the present purpose.
The Act, 1993 was preceded by an ordinance which was issued on 07.01.1993.
4192 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
4740 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
6965 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
4905 4908 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Civil suits were filed shortly thereafter.
Aslam versus Union of India Ors.
208 of 1993 pending in this Court.
5498 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
7226 of 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Subsequently, this Ordinance was repealed by the Act and the petitioner was allowed to amend his petition.
The validity of Act, 1993 was challenged on several grounds.
By the said order the High Court framed the question whether the suit has abated or survives and since the said issue necessarily touched upon the validity of the Ordinance, the Court ordered numberice to the Attorney General and listed the case for hearing of the issue on April 26, 1993.
8 of 1993 had been replaced by the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 No.
was also filed under Article 32 in this Court.
This attempt did number succeed and there was litigation in the Allahabad High Court as well as in this Court.
In the result, we allow this application by ordering the withdrawal of the five Writ Petition Nos.
Aslam, who was also one of the petitioners in Constitution Bench Judgment in Ismail Faruquis case filed a writ petition seeking certain reliefs with regard to 67.703 acres of land acquired under the Act, 1993.
Indeed, it was an act of national shame.
This resulted in a longstanding dispute.
Before the Constitution Bench, both the parties had placed reliance on Ismail Faruquis case.
4739 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
821 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Ordinance No.
It also appears that in the meantime as many as five Writ Petition Nos.
Besides these proceedings in the High Court a Writ Petition No.
