Ayodhya Dispute: Govt. Approaches SC to Transfer Non-Disputed Land

Though the Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid title suit was set to be heard today, the Supreme Court had cancelled the hearing two days back on January 27, due to Justice Bobde being unavailable for medical reasons. However, perhaps aiming to keep the matter alive and the flames simmering, the Union Government has reportedly approached the Supreme Court to have the non-disputed land out of 67.703 acres returned to the original owners. The original owner pushing to have its 42 acres of land returned is the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, a trust that was established by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). Needless to say, the VHP played a significant role demolishing the mosque.

Following the unrest after the mosque was demolished in December 1992, the Union Government had enacted the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. This enabled the government to forcibly acquire 67.703 acres of land including the area where the mosque once stood as well as the surrounding area. In October 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the Act in the case of Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India.

In 2003, the Supreme Court had ordered that status quo be maintained in the disputed land.

Also Read | Babri Masjid Demolition: Journalists Recall the Horror

On March 23, 2018, the Muslim parties in the title suit dispute had filed a curative petition for the Court to reconsider one assertion in the Ismail Faruqui decision that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam. The petitioners argued that this was one of the reasons for which the Allahabad High Court had proposed the division of the property between three parties in 2010. The Supreme Court dismissed the curative petition on September 27, 2018, but stated that the decision in Ismail Faruqui would have no bearing on the title dispute.

The matter was listed for January 10, 2019. On January 10, one of the counsels for the appellants, Rajiv Dhavan pointed out that Justice UU Lalit had previously represented former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh in a contempt petition related to the Babri Masjid case. Subsequently, Justice Lalit recused himself from hearing the matter. On January 23, the Chief Justice of India reconstituted the Bench replacing Justice UU Lalit and Justice NV Ramana with Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer. The present Bench also consists of the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde and Justice Chandrachud.

Also See | What is the Ram Temple Really About?

The Union Government has reportedly relied on a portion of the Ismail Faruqui Judgement wherein the Court had observed;

“However, at a later stage when the exact area acquired which is needed, for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition, can be determined, it would not merely be permissible but also desirable that the superfluous excess area is released from acquisition and reverted to its earlier owner. The challenge to acquisition of any part of the adjacent area on the ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the objective of settling the dispute relating to the disputed area cannot be examined at this stage but, in case the superfluous area is not returned to its owner even after the exact area needed for the purpose is finally determined, it would be open to the owner of any such property to then challenge the superfluous acquisition being unrelated to the purpose of acquisition.”

Also Read | In ‘Fortress’ Ayodhya, Both Communities Seem Unhappy and Wary

The government’s petition, as uploaded on Livelaw, requested the Court to, “Permit the Central Government to restore/revert/hand over back superfluous / excess vacant land [other than the disputed land admeasuring 0.313 acres] to the owners/occupiers from whom the respective lands were acquired under the Act of 1993.” The Times of India and The Indian Express reported that the disputed area measures 2.77 acres. However, The Hindu referred to the disputed area as measuring 0.313 acres.

It may also be worthwhile to consider that the timing is certainly going to win the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) brownie points among its more hard line base. Many among the Hindu right wing have criticised the government for not bringing in an Ordinance to have the temple constructed. Several BJP leaders commented on the government’s petition on Twitter.

Ram Madhav referred to returning the 42 acres belonging to the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas as not being out of the ordinary. Subramanian Swamy on the other hand hinted that returning the land would be a step closer to building the Ram Mandir. This would hint that the rationale for returning the excess land is likely to be for constructing structures relating to the Ram Temple all around the disputed site. Some of the likely structures could be halls, gardens and dwellings for priests and devotees. Though such structures are unlikely to have a bearing on the title dispute, they can certainly contribute to creating a stifling atmosphere, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.