DMA NEWSDESK
Share us on


MAIN STORIES THIS WEEK
IPL scam: Court disposes of Sreesanth's plea
India, China vow to resolve border row, boost ties
Lodge FIRs against two BSP ministers: UP Lokayukta
51 killed as powerful tornado slams Oklahoma City
Heat scorches north India
Much ado about nose rings at Cannes
'Splitsvilla 6' gets hotter, spicier
N. Korea Test-Fires Six Short-Range Missiles In Three Days, Angers South
Want to try Anglo-Indian food, Thirty Nine in Hauz Khas ideal place
Big lucks will play major role in Lok Sabha poll
© 2008-2010 Dmanewsdesk.com
- All Rights Reserved.
Ayodhya verdict: HC says divide land into 3 parts September 30, 2010
Lucknow: The three-judge special Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court ruled by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts and be distributed among the Sunni Wafk Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla'. The High Court ruled that the land on which the idol of Lord Rama was installed belonged to the Hindus and part of the land under the central dome of Babri Masjid was the Ram Janamsthan which will go to the Hindus.

Details of the judgement: 1) The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.

2) The disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Ram as a child.

3) The disputed structure was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus is cannot have the character of a mosque.
4) It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram and Hindus in general had the right to worship. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as birthplace and visiting it as a sacred place of worship since time immemorial. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
The bench comprising of Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan, Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Dharam Veer Sharma delivered the verdict at 3:30 PM in Lucknow.
Senior lawyers Ravi Shanker Prasad and KN Bhatt said that bench ruled that status quo would be maintained at the disputed site in Ayodhya for the next three months.

According to Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla', Justice DV Sharma decreed the title suit in favour of Hindus.
The High Court also dismissed the petition by Sunni Wafk Board and said that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple. Justice Khan ruled that the disputed land belonged to both the Hindus and Muslims.
The verdict was pronounced after all the litigants reached Court No. 21 of the Lucknow bench.
Barricades were erected about 200 metres from the court room and no one other than those connected with the case was allowed anywhere near the court room.
Share OR Bookmark This News With
| More
EMAIL THIS NEWS
COMMENTS No comments yet

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT
Name (required)
Email (required but will not be published)
Website (e.g. www.dmanewsdesk.com)
City
Comment (required)
Nation
Ayodhya verdict: HC says divide land into 3 parts
Ayodhya verdict: HC says divide land into 3 parts
Ayodhya verdict: Allahabad High Court judgement soon
Ayodhya verdict: Allahabad High Court judgement soon
Ayodhya verdict: Allahabad High Court judgement soon
Tight security across the country amid appeals for peace
  
Ayodhya verdict: the long wait ends today
Ayodhya verdict: PM appeals for communal peace
Rivals in Bihar polls worried ahead of Ayodhya verdict
I'm satisfied with CWG arrangements: Gill
UID to benefit common people: Manmohan
Demand for adding Hindi in UN list increasing: Sibal
Supreme Court on CWG: Rs 70,000 crore and rampant corruption
PM, Sonia launch Unique Identity scheme in Maharashtra village
Security stepped up ahead of Ayodhya verdict
Kasab can't meet lawyers alone, rules court
Ayodhya verdict on Thursday, Supreme Court rejects deferment plea
No Krishna-Qureshi talks in New York as war of words breaks out
  
CBI asked to be probe death threats to Jayalalitha
Court frowns on adjournments in Mayawati assets' case
  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  256  257  258  259  260  261  262  263  264  265  266  267  268  269  270  271  272  273  274  275  276  277  278  279  280  281  282  283  284  285  286  287  288  289  290  291  292  293  294  295  296  297  298  299  300  301  302  303  304  305  306  307  308  309  310  311  312  313  314  315  316  317  318  319  320  321  322  323  324  325  326  327 
 PREV  |  NEXT