Take a fresh look at your lifestyle.

Jamiat Ulama I Hind filed review Petition in Supreme Court

Supreme Court has virtually granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram, Maulana Arshad Madani

New Delhi December 2, 2019,The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind leading petitioner in Babri Masjid title suit has moved Supreme Court of India to request court to review its 9th November’s Judgment giving disputed site to Hindus and 5 Acers alternate land to Muslims. Review Petition seeking review of the impugned judgment and final order dated November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010 The Review Petition filed by Advocate on Record Ejaz Maqbool.
In the review Petition Jamiat Ulama said the impugned judgment and order has virtually granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram in the said place. The Hon’ble Court by virtue of the impugned order has though acknowledged few of the several illegalities committed by the Hindu Parties, particularly in 1934 (damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid), 1949 (desecrating the Babri Masjid) and 1992 (demolition of the Babri Masjid), but this Hon’ble Court has proceeded to condone the said illegal acts and has awarded the disputed site to the very party which based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts. Further, this Hon’ble Court has in an attempt to balance the reliefs between the parties, while condoning illegalities of the Hindu parties, has allotted alternate land admeasuring 5 acres to the Muslim parties, which was neither pleaded nor prayed for by the Muslim parties. In the petition is further stated that, whether this Hon’ble Court has erred in granting a relief which virtually amounts to a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid? Whether this Hon’ble Court is empowered to condone illegal acts of parties in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142? Whether this Hon’ble Court while condoning the illegalities of the Hindu parties under Article 142, ignored express legal principles and would such an exercise be in teeth of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409. Whether this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent in relying upon accounts of various travelers to decide a title suit?
Whether the ASI report could be relied upon for other facts, when in fact it has not noted that any structure whatsoever was destroyed for building the Babri Mosque?  The Review Petition further said that, whether in this Hon’ble Court erred in equating wanton acts of destruction and trespass committed by the Hindu parties to acts of assertion of claim over the disputed site? Whether this Hon’ble Court erred in not holding the Hindu parties in the present matter, who were appearing in representative capacity, responsible for the series of illegal acts committed by the Hindu Community?
It is further said it the review petition that, Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent when it observed that exclusive and unimpeded possession of the Hindus over the outer courtyard was evident from the prayers being offered by them at the Ram Chabutara, Sita Rasoi and Bhandara in the outer courtyard. It is submitted that while making the above observation, this Hon’ble Court failed to take notice of the fact that the construction of Ram Chabutara in the outer courtyard was itself illegal and the same was ordered to be dug out by the authorities

It is further noted in petition that, Court erred in relying upon the oral testimonies of Hindu witnesses stating that they used to pray at the grill-brick wall in reverence of the alleged grabh-griha (i.e. the place under the Central Dome). It is submitted that in a series of litigations concerning the disputed site, beginning from 1858 till the present proceedings it was never the case of the Hindu parties that the place under the Central Dome of the Babri Masjid was believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. In fact, all of these litigations beginning from 1858, concerned only the outer courtyard and never was any claim laid specifically on the place under the Central Dome of the Babri Masjid. The Petitioner in review Petition further said Court erred in not appreciating that the case that the place under the Central Dome was worshipped as the birthplace of Lord Ram was created as an afterthought, in order to justify the illegal act of placing of the idol under the Central Dome on December 22/23.1949. This stand was substantiated by mere oral testimonies which were recorded as late as in the year 1999.

It is further mentioned In the petition that, Court erred in concluding that the account of Tieffenthaler indicated the existence of the faith and belief of the Hindus that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram. It is submitted that Tieffenthaler mentioned a bedi (craddle) and stated that it was on this where Beshan (Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram. Pertinently, this Bedi was situated at the Ram Chabootara and this fact has been admitted by the witnesses of the Hindu parties It is further said that, Court noted the illegal acts committed by the Hindu parties in 1934,1949 and 1992, it committed an error apparent and proceeded to not only condone the said violations, but also award them by decreeing the suit of the very parties who indulged in such serious violation of the rule of law.

It is further said Court erred in allotting alternate land admeasuring 5 acres to the Muslim parties, which was neither pleaded nor prayed for by the Muslim parties and Court has committed error apparent by appreciating evidence unevenly and has wrongly evaluated the preponderance of probabilities, which on the face of it is contrary to record.

It is further stated in petition that, Court erred in considering the fact of parikrama in adjudicating the present title dispute, particularly when this Hon’ble Court has itself accepted that method of offering worship unique to one religion cannot result in conferral of an absolute title to the parties from one religion over parties from another religion.

After filing review petition president Jamiat UIama I Hind Maulana Sayyed Arshad Madani Said that, Original Suit No.4 of 1989 was filed and was tried under Order I Rule 8 of CPC and even if the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P. is not preferring a Review Petition before this Hon’ble Court but the said Suit was filed in a representative capacity for the entire Muslim Community and the Review Petitioner is entitled to approach to this Hon’ble Court because there are patent errors on the face of the record in the impugned judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court dated November 9
Madani said that the purpose of filing Review petition by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind is not to disrupt the country’s national solidarity and law and order. “Using the privileges provided in the law, a review request is being made regarding the decision of the five-member constitutional bench. Because the country’s millions including Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christians and legal experts are taking this decision beyond their understanding,” he said.
Earlier this month, a five-judge Supreme Court bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi unanimously ruled in favour of Ram Lalla and said the entire disputed land spread over 2.7 acres will be handed over to a trust formed by the government, which will monitor the construction of a Ram temple at the site.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Visitor Reach:1032,824
Certified by Facebook:

error: Content is protected !!