Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babri Masjid Case Story

It is the longest running legal dispute in India. Call it by any name - Babri dispute or Ram Mandir dispute, but it all simply boils down to just who owns the 60 sq feet by 40 sq feet land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid used to stand till December 6, 1992.
The dispute actually dates back to 1885 when the first petition was filed by the head of the Nirmohi Akhara asking for permission to offer prayers to Ram Lalla inside what was known as the Babri Masjid. But the permission was never given.
In the following year in 1886, district Judge of Faizabad court FEA Chamier gave his verdict "It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance."

It is a dispute that dates back to before the first battle of independence of India. The first clashes between Hindus and Muslims in the Babri mosque was held in 1853, when Wajid Ali Shah was still the Nawab of Awadh. Not many details available, except that he managed to resolve the conflict without any loss of life Over three decades later, in 1885, Raghubar Das, who claimed to be the mahant janmasthan authorization needed to build a temple on chabootra ram. 

The final decision was rendered by a district judge, Faizabad following March. "I discovered that the mosque was built by Emperor Babar, stands on the border of Ayodhya. It is very unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by Hindus. But when that happened 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the complaint. Anything that can be done is to maintain the status, the court ruled hgghfhg 'Das has filed a complaint with the Judicial Commissioner for Oudh (Awadh was then called) W. Young, who also refused his plea. 

Thus, the first series of judicial decisions in favor of conservation of the mosque, where he stood. The matter then lay dormant and the status quo remained intact over the next six decades. then the night intervening December 21 to 22, 1949, gods Ram mysteriously appeared in the mosque. 

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, wanted idols will be removed, but the district magistrate and KK Nayar, law and order breaks citing possible, expressed his inability to do so. He later resigned. In 1950, a local resident, Gopal Singh Visharad, filed a complaint in the civil courts require a direction that allows it to offer prayers in the mosque where the idols were installed.
 

But what are the main issues on which gives its verdict? HT takes a look: Is this the construction of a mosque in dispute? It was built on the site of a temple after demolishing the same thing? It is part of the property used for worship by Hindus immediately before the construction of the mosque in 1528? The property is the site of Lord Ram Support? Hindus worship the shrine was challenged in Shree Ram Janma Bhumi and treat it as a place of pilgrimage since time immemorial? the Muslim community in the possession of the property until 1949 and who have been deprived of the same? Muslims offered prayers at the shrine since time immemorial? They were the idols of Lord Ram placed inside the building involved in the night of 22 and 23 December 1949 or there before?

1. Year 1528: Babur, Mughal Empire, builds a mosque in Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya. Some Hindus say Ram Janmabhoomi is the birthplace of Lord Rama

2. Year 1853: First recorded incidents of religious violence at the site.

3. Year 1855: Hindus and Muslims clash over possession of the mosque. There are claims that Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabootara were built around this time

4. Year 1859: British colonial administration erects a fence to separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer court by Hindus.

5. Year 1885: Mahant Raghubar Das files a suit seeking permission to build a canopy on Ram Chabootra

6. Year 1949: Idols of Lord Rama appear inside mosque allegedly placed there by Hindus. Muslims protest and both parties file civil suits. The government proclaims the premises a disputed area and locks the gates.

7. Year 1950: Gopal Singh Visharad and Mahant Paramhand Ramchandra Das file suits in Faizabad, asking for permission to offer prayers to the idols installed at Asthan Janmabhoomi. Inner courtyard gates are locked, but puja is allowed

8. Year 1959: Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath file a case, claiming to be the sect responsible for conducting puja

9. Year 1961: Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP, files a case claiming the mosque and the surrounding land was a graveyard

10. Year 1984: Hindus form a committee to "liberate" the birth-place of Lord Rama and build a temple in his honor, spearheaded by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad party (VHP). Then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani takes over leadership of campaign.

11. Year 1986: On a petition of Hari Shanker Dubey, a judge directs masjid gates be unlocked to allow darshan.District judge orders the gates of the disputed mosque opened to allow Hindus to worship there. Muslims set up Babri Mosque Action Committee in protest.

12. Year 1989: VHP steps up campaign, laying the foundations of a Rama temple on land adjacent to the disputed mosque. Former VHP vice-president Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal files a case, seeking the mosque be shifted elsewhere

13. Year 1990: VHP volunteers partially damage the mosque. Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar tries to resolve the dispute through negotiations, which fail the next year.
14. Year 1991: BJP comes to power in Uttar Pradesh state, where Ayodhya is located.

15. Year 1992: The mosque is torn down by supporters of the VHP, the Shiv Sena party and the BJP, prompting nationwide rioting between Hindus and Muslims in which more than 2,000 people die.

16. Year 1998: The BJP forms coalition government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

17. Year 2001: Tensions rise on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque. VHP pledges again to build Hindu temple at the site.

18. Year 2002: The High Court directs the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the site to determine if a temple lay underneath

19. Year Jan 2002: Mr Vajpayee sets up an Ayodhya cell in his office and appoints a senior official, Shatrughna Singh, to hold talks with Hindu and Muslim leaders.

20. Year Feb 2002: BJP rules out committing itself to the construction of a temple in its election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. VHP confirms deadline of 15 March to begin construction. Hundreds of volunteers converge on site. At least 58 people are killed in an attack on a train in Godhra which is carrying Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya.

21. Year Mar 2002: Between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, die in riots in Gujarat following the train attack.

22. Year Apr 2002: Three High Court judges begin hearings on determining who owns the religious site.

23. Year Jan 2003: Archaeologists begin a court-ordered survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Rama existed on the site.

24. Year -Aug 2003: The survey says there is evidence of a temple beneath the mosque, but Muslims dispute the findings. Mr Vajpayee says at the funeral of Hindu activist Ramchandra Das Paramhans that he will fulfill the dying man's wishes and build a temple at Ayodhya. However, he hopes the courts and negotiations will solve the issue.

25. Year -Sept 2003: A court rules that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque, but no charges are brought against Mr Advani, now deputy prime minister, who was also at the site in 1992.

26. Year -Oct 2004: Mr Advani says his party still has "unwavering" commitment to building a temple at Ayodhya, which he said was "inevitable".

27. Year -Nov 2004: A court in Uttar Pradesh rules that an earlier order which exonerated Mr Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.

28. Year -July 2005 Suspected Islamic militants attack the disputed site, using a jeep laden with explosives to blow a hole in the wall of the complex. Security forces kill five people they say are militants, and a sixth who was not immediately identified.

29. Year -June 2009: The Liberhan commission investigating events leading up to the mosque's demolition submits its report - 17 years after it began its inquiry. Its contents are not made public.

30. Year -July 2010 - On July 27, the court took the initiative for an amicable solution to the dispute when it called on counsel for the contending parties to go into the possibility. But no headway was made.

31. Year -September 2010 - The Special Bench, at its Bench of Judicature here, comprising Justices S.U. Khan, D.V. Sharma and Sudhir Agarwal, said that Mr. Tripathi's application lacked merit. It also imposed “exemplary costs” of Rs. 50,000, terming his effort for an out-of-court settlement as a “mischievous attempt.”

32. Year - Mr. Tripathi's plea was opposed by the Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, which submitted separate replies to the OSD on September 16. Stating that an amicable solution was not possible, they alleged that the application was mala fide.

33. Year -24th September 2010 - The judgment on the 60-year-old title suit will be pronounced at 3.30 p.m. on September 24. The court reserved its judgment on July 26.

UPDATE- Thursday, September 23, 2010
SC delays the verdict for one week in Ram Mandir and Babri Case-
Supreme Court of India delays the verdict in the Ram Temple and Babri Mosque Demolition.
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi filed a petition regarding this and Supreme court of India delayed the verdict for one week and issued the notice to all concern parties.
So there will be no verdict tomorrow that is on 24th in this case.
SC will again hear this deferment petition on 28th September 2010.
SC Bench is headed by Justice Ravindran and Bench itself has different opinion on this and now next hearing will be heard on 28th September.

34. NEW DELHI: In a significant decision, Indian Supreme Court on Thursday deferred by one week the much-awaited Allahabad High Court verdict due on Friday on the 60-year old Babri Masjid land title ownership dispute that can pave way for reconstruction of the demolished mosque or construction of the Ram Mandir on the site.

The central government was not a party in the dispute arising from five suits in the High Court, but the Supreme Court decided to make it a party to try for out-of-court settlement even while issuing notices to all concerned and fixing Tuesday for hearing the urgent special leave petition (SLP) filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi to defer the judgement for giving time for conciliation. The Attorney General was asked to assist the court in the next hearing.

If the apex court’s interim stay goes beyond September 30, the High Court will not only be unable to deliver the verdict but a new bench will have to be constituted to hear the case de novo as Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, who is part of the present three-judge bench, is retiring that day. The Supreme Court took this into account while fixing the hearing on Tuesday, September 28.

35. Allahabad High Court ruled by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla'.

The Allahabad High Court has divided the ownership of the disputed site into three parts: Ram Lalla idol site to Ram, Nirmohi Akhara gets Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, Sunni Wakf Board gets the rest.

“Justice D V Sharma decreed the title suit in favour of Hindus,” said lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla'.

Status quo will be maintained at the disputed site in Ayodhya for three months, claimed lawyers Ravi Shanker Prasad and K N Bhatt.

Justice S U Khan ruled that the disputed land belongs to both the communities, said lawyers
Ayodhya verdict Latest.......