Jump to content

Return Ayodhya Land Not Under Dispute to Ram Temple Trust


Rajakeeyam

Recommended Posts

Seeking to speed up the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya in the face of judicial delays and growing pressure from the RSS, the central government has moved the Supreme Court, saying it is "duty bound" to return to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and other owners the land adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya.

In its application, the Centre has sought modification of the Supreme Court's orders in 2003 and 2011 by which a complete status quo was imposed on entire 67.7 acre of the land acquired by the government in 1993.

While the hearing of the title dispute in the top court has been delayed on account of various reasons, the government's move has come close of the heels of the upcoming general elections wherein construction of Ram Temple has been a prime issue for the BJP. 

The government has now submitted that before the court that the original landowners, which included 42 acre of acquired land of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, were "entitled" to get their land back.

"It is respectfully submitted that the acquisition took place in the year 1993 and 25 years have passed, the original landowners whose land, which were not in dispute but were still acquired, are entitled to get it back and the Central government is duty bound to restore/revert/hand over the same land," stated the application. 

The plea emphasized that only 0.313 area, upon which the Babri mosque stood, is the bone of contention and since the ownership of the "excess" and "superfluous" area is beyond any dispute, their land should be released from acquisition. 

The government pointed out that outcome of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court at this stage will not have any impact on the excess land that was acquired and hence there is no legal impediment in allowing the Centre to restore the land to the Nyas and other original land owners. 

It further undertook to provide proper access to and enjoyment of the other rights of the land to the successful parties of the case relating to the title dispute being adjudicated by the court. 

Welcoming the government's petition in SC, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad called it a step in the right direction.

The government has filed the petition a day after the Supreme Court delayed the hearing in the Ayodhya title suit. The hearing was cancelled because one of the judges, Justice SA Bobde, was not available due to medical reasons.

Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the temple-mosque case must be heard in court without delay. "The Ayodhya case has been pending for the last 70 years. The Allahabad High Court order was in favour of the temple (in 2010), but then it is on hold in the Supreme Court now. This matter should be cleared soon," he said. 

The Allahabad high court had ordered for the three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area at Ayodhya among the parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla.

https://www.news18.com/news/politics/centre-plea-in-supreme-court-to-return-undisputed-ayodhya-land-to-ram-temple-trust-2017335.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vinayak said:

Delhi ni minchina Capital nirmista ani cheppi enta nijam chesado idi kuda anteeeeee:roflmao::roflmao:

drama artist ani telusu ga. atleast ee vishayam lo RSS ni mosam seyyadu anukuntunna. endukante vallani disappoint sesthe booth level lo support seyyaru ga...but naaku kuda doubt gaane undi ekkado. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rajakeeyam said:

tareekh pe tareekh antaremo SC

i believe if central govt. willfully come forward then SC will be ready to settle this outside court. Before i read somewhere that Suprecourt was infact asking Center and state govts to try to settle this outside court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LuvNTR said:

i believe if central govt. willfully come forward then SC will be ready to settle this outside court. Before i read somewhere that Suprecourt was infact asking Center and state govts to try to settle this outside court. 

SC is basically afraid to give a decision, HC already gave in favor of RJN.

Outside settlement ki srisri tried but didn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LuvNTR said:

drama artist ani telusu ga. atleast ee vishayam lo RSS ni mosam seyyadu anukuntunna. endukante vallani disappoint sesthe booth level lo support seyyaru ga...but naaku kuda doubt gaane undi ekkado. :D

Mosam cheyyatam alavatu ayinodiki RSS ledhu,  own family ledhu....andharu okkate...that too Mosam and ego by birth blood tho puttina Modi ki oka lekka

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rajakeeyam said:

Seeking to speed up the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya in the face of judicial delays and growing pressure from the RSS, the central government has moved the Supreme Court, saying it is "duty bound" to return to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and other owners the land adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya.

In its application, the Centre has sought modification of the Supreme Court's orders in 2003 and 2011 by which a complete status quo was imposed on entire 67.7 acre of the land acquired by the government in 1993.

While the hearing of the title dispute in the top court has been delayed on account of various reasons, the government's move has come close of the heels of the upcoming general elections wherein construction of Ram Temple has been a prime issue for the BJP. 

The government has now submitted that before the court that the original landowners, which included 42 acre of acquired land of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, were "entitled" to get their land back.

"It is respectfully submitted that the acquisition took place in the year 1993 and 25 years have passed, the original landowners whose land, which were not in dispute but were still acquired, are entitled to get it back and the Central government is duty bound to restore/revert/hand over the same land," stated the application. 

The plea emphasized that only 0.313 area, upon which the Babri mosque stood, is the bone of contention and since the ownership of the "excess" and "superfluous" area is beyond any dispute, their land should be released from acquisition. 

The government pointed out that outcome of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court at this stage will not have any impact on the excess land that was acquired and hence there is no legal impediment in allowing the Centre to restore the land to the Nyas and other original land owners. 

It further undertook to provide proper access to and enjoyment of the other rights of the land to the successful parties of the case relating to the title dispute being adjudicated by the court. 

Welcoming the government's petition in SC, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad called it a step in the right direction.

The government has filed the petition a day after the Supreme Court delayed the hearing in the Ayodhya title suit. The hearing was cancelled because one of the judges, Justice SA Bobde, was not available due to medical reasons.

Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the temple-mosque case must be heard in court without delay. "The Ayodhya case has been pending for the last 70 years. The Allahabad High Court order was in favour of the temple (in 2010), but then it is on hold in the Supreme Court now. This matter should be cleared soon," he said. 

The Allahabad high court had ordered for the three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area at Ayodhya among the parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla.

https://www.news18.com/news/politics/centre-plea-in-supreme-court-to-return-undisputed-ayodhya-land-to-ram-temple-trust-2017335.html

Aaa dispute land lo ne maszid undedi dani kosamee kada asalu maszid kulchindi ippudu dispute land vaddu aneteee asalu maszid endhuku kulcharu

appudu BJP gelavadaniki kulcharu ippudu election kosam aurgent ga temple start cheyyadaniki dispute land vaddu antunnaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, krish2015 said:

Aaa dispute land lo ne maszid undedi dani kosamee kada asalu maszid kulchindi ippudu dispute land vaddu aneteee asalu maszid endhuku kulcharu

appudu BJP gelavadaniki kulcharu ippudu election kosam aurgent ga temple start cheyyadaniki dispute land vaddu antunnaru

Dispute land vaddu antalla, adhi decide ayye varaku idhi ivvandi antunnaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iqbal Ansari, a litigant whose father late Hashim Ansari was the oldest litigant in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit, said he had no objection to the Centre’s move. “The government had already acquired that land. I have no objection if the government uses it for any purpose. Our case is for Babri mosque that is pending in the Supreme Court,” he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ee avidiya raaneeki 5 years pattinda bey??? 

Janaalu antha Pagal gaaalla lekka kanpostunnaraaa? 

Idemenna lotu budget desamaa leka raajadhaani leni desamaa priority lekapotaaniki! 

 

Ganga nadi ni mineral water tho nimpinav.... geppudu Birla mandir ni tala denney lekkana Ram mandir katestanantunnav!

 

daniki maa peddayana coffeee jurreeyyyy gif lu.... 

 

thuuuu maa batuku!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sskmaestro said:

ee avidiya raaneeki 5 years pattinda bey??? 

Janaalu antha Pagal gaaalla lekka kanpostunnaraaa? 

Idemenna lotu budget desamaa leka raajadhaani leni desamaa priority lekapotaaniki! 

 

Ganga nadi ni mineral water tho nimpinav.... geppudu Birla mandir ni tala denney lekkana Ram mandir katestanantunnav!

 

daniki maa peddayana coffeee jurreeyyyy gif lu.... 

 

thuuuu maa batuku!

I don't think Mandir will be done...he would have done it long ago if he wanted.....better to ignore this idiot....the day he tried to murder Togadia his supporters must have realised he is a wolf in sheep's skin....but still Bjp Is better than Congress with out shah and modi instead of this buffoon Gandhi dynasty who were implementing Roman orders in india

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...