'Ayodhya' facts that must be made known immediately

[Guest guest]

M. RAMA JOIS : Undisputed Land belonging to The Ram Janmabhoomi

Nyas

>

>

>THE INDIAN EXPRESS / Mar. 4, 2002

>

>Ayodhyaâ's Undisputed land: First, a few ground rules

>

>M. RAMA JOIS

>

>This article is intended to remove the wrong impression created in the

>minds of the people that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is proposing to

>commence construction of Ram Mandir on the disputed area at Ayodhya

>against the court order, which has created tension among the people. In

>fact and in truth, the VHP is only proposing to commence construction on

>totally undisputed land belonging to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, which is at

>present in the hands of the Central government.

>

>This fact, beyond a shadow of doubt, arises from the judgment of the

>Supreme Court in Dr Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India [1994 (6) S.C.C.360].

>While upholding the validity of acquisition of lands by the Central

>government, the Court made a clear distinction between two categories of

>lands thus:

>

>

>The Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is the undisputed owner of 43 acres of land in

>Ayodhya. It is on this undisputed land that the VHP proposes to start

>construction of the Ram temple to fulfill the aspirations of the people

>

>

>(a) Disputed land, namely small area on which Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri

>Masjid, as described in the white paper, stood, including the inner

>courtyard and outer courtyard of the structure before it was demolished on

>December 6, 1992.

>

>(b) Large extent of about 67 acres of undisputed land in the locality,

>belonging to various persons, including 43 acres belonging to Rama

>Janmabhoomi Nyas.

>

>As regards the disputed land, the Supreme Court held that the disputed

>land shall be with the Central government as a receiver and it shall be

>handed over to the party succeeding in the suits pending before the

>Allahabad High Court. The VHP is not proposing to touch even an inch of

>that disputed land.

>

>As far as the undisputed lands are concerned, the relevant portion of the

>judgment reads:

>

>The narration of facts indicates that the acquisition of properties under

>the Act affects the rights of both the communities and not merely those of

>the Muslim community. The interest claimed by the Muslims is only over the

>disputed site where the mosque stood before its demolition. The objection

>of the Hindus to this claim has to be adjudicated. The remaining entire

>property acquired under the Act is such over which no title is claimed by

>the Muslims. A large part thereof comprises of properties of Hindus of

>which the title is not even in dispute. The justification given for

>acquisition of the larger area, including the property respecting which

>title is not disputed, is that the same is necessary to ensure that the

>final outcome of adjudication should not be rendered meaningless by the

>existence of properties belonging to Hindus in the vicinity of the

>disputed structure in case the Muslims are found entitled to the disputed

>site. This obviously means that in the event of the Muslims succeeding in

>the adjudication of the dispute requiring the disputed structure to be

>handed over to the Muslim community, their success should not be thwarted

>by denial of property access to, and enjoyment of rights in, the disputed

>area by exercise of rights of ownership of Hindu owners of the adjacent

>properties. Obviously, it is for this reason that the adjacent area has

>also been acquired, to make available to the successful party, that part

>of it which is considered necessary for proper enjoyment of the fruits of

>success on the final outcome to the adjudication. It is clear that one of

>the purposes of the acquisition of the adjacent properties is the

>ensurement of the effective enjoyment of the disputed site by the

>acquisition of the adjacent area is incidental to the main purpose and

>cannot be termed unreasonable. (Para 49)

>

>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 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. Rejection of

>the challenge on this ground to acquisition at this stage by the

>undisputed owners of any such property situated in the vicinity of the

>disputed area is with the reservation of this liberty to them. There is no

>contest to their claim of quashing the acquisition of the adjacent

>properties by anyone except the Central government which seeks to justify

>the acquisition on the basis of necessity. On the construction of the

>statute made by us, this appears to be the logical, appropriate and just

>view to take in respect of such adjacent properties in which none other

>than the undisputed owner claims title and interest.’’ (Para 50)

>

>The conclusion at Para 96 reads:

>

>The challenge to the acquisition of any part of the adjacent area on the

>ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the professed objective of

>settling the long-standing dispute cannot be examined in this stage.

>However, the area found to be superfluous on the exact area needed for the

>purpose being determined on adjudication of the dispute, must be restored

>to the undisputed owners.

>

> >From the above portion of the judgment, it is clear that under the Act

>the Central government acquired large extent of lands which are undisputed

>lands, major portion of which belongs to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and the

>purpose was for ensuring effective implementation of the decree in the

>event of the decree of the Court in the pending suits going in favour of

>Muslims.

>

>The Supreme Court clearly stated in Para 50 of the judgment that there was

>no contest to the claim of quashing the acquisition of the adjacent

>properties by anyone except the Central government which seeks to justify

>the acquisition on the basis of necessity. The Supreme Court has also made

>it clear that at a later stage the Central government has to retain in its

>hands only some portion of undisputed lands adjacent to the disputed land

>necessary for use of disputed area to be given to Muslim community for

>effective implementation of the decree of the Court in the pending title

>suits before the Allahabad High Court, if and when the suit is adjudicated

>in their favour.

>

>The Court has also expressly stated that after specifying the land

>required for the above purpose, the rest of the undisputed land should be

>handed over to the undisputed owner. The Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is the

>undisputed owner of 43 acres. It is on this undisputed land only that the

>VHP is proposing to commence construction, stating that it is necessary to

>fulfill the aspirations of billions of people as Central government has

>not returned the undisputed land, as indicated by the Court, though eight

>years are over from the date of judgment. It is this undisputed land on

>which shilanyas was done during November 1989. The controversy can be

>solved either by handing over unwanted surplus land belonging to Ram

>Janmabhoomi Nyas or by granting permission to the VHP to use it pending

>specification of the extent. Whatever that may be, the Muslim community

>has no interest at all in this land and their right and interest is only

>in respect of the disputed land, as clearly stated in the judgment of the

>Supreme Court.

>

>The above fact is made clear in the representation given by the VHP to the

>Hon’ble Prime Minister on February 27. This fact should be made known to

>the people in general and Muslims in particular by all to avoid

>unnecessary tension, enmity and social disharmony by creating non-existent

>dispute over undisputed land.

>

>(The writer is a former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

>and a leading member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad)

>

>

>

Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball

 

 

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.