Government to SC: Return Ayodhya land, except disputed area, to owners

NEW DELHI: In a move intended to assuage the restive Ram Mandir constituency, the Centre on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking return of 67-odd acres acquired — except the disputed area — to the original owners more than 26 years after the land was taken over to maintain communal harmony after demolition of the Babri Masjid.

In a surprise twist to the case, the Centre argued that the land could be returned to the owners which include the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas which owns 42 acres and is the leading light for construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

Though it was believed that the extent of the disputed area where the Ram Lalla idol is installed was 2.77 acres and the Allahabad high court, while deciding the title suits, had divided it equally among three parties — Ram Lalla, Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara, the Centre limited it to a minuscule 0.313 acre by taking only the plinth area of the demolished three-domed structure into consideration.

This means the Centre intends to return 67.39 acres of the 67.703 acre acquired by the Union government through the ‘Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Ordinance’ on January 7, 1993, to the original owners . The ordinance was later replaced with an Act of the same nomenclature.

Government sources indicated the Centre feels the court will need to give due consideration to its plea and the SC has previously said the acquisition was a temporary measure taken till adjudication of the case. The move, welcomed by VHP, is intended to signal the Modi government’s commitment to the temple cause, particularly in the light of uncertainty as to when the SC will pronounce on the appeals in the main dispute itself.

The Centre told the SC that while returning excess 67.39 acres to original owners, including Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, it would ensure that “ultimate party/parties succeeding in the appeals ( for ownership of the disputed land) can get proper access to and enjoyment of rights in the disputed land”.

In 1994, the SC had upheld validity of the acquisition Act in Ismail Faruqui judgment but clarified that “acquisition of the disputed area was not meant to deprive the community found entitled to it of the same or to retain any part of the excess area which was not necessary for a proper resolution of the dispute or to effectuate the purpose of acquisition”. However, the court had ordered maintenance of status quo in the acquired area.

When attempts were made to initiate ‘bhoomi pujan’ in Ayodhya for the Ram temple, on a petition filed by Mohammed Aslam alias Bhure, the SC had on March 31, 2003, said that the fate of land acquired adjacent to the disputed area would depend on the outcome of the title suits. “Acquisition of larger extent of land is incidental to the main purpose. Thus, the two acquired lands are intrinsically connected with one another and cannot be separated at this stage of the proceedings for different treatment during interregnum,” it had said.

Seeking vacation of the March 31, 2003 order, the Centre referred to the Faruqui judgment, in which the SC had said, “If any land becomes superfluous, such land will have to be returned to the owner who may have to initiate appropriate proceedings to challenge the validity of acquisition.”

The Centre’s move to approach the SC to return the excess land to original owners is spurred by the court’s observation in the 25-year-old Faruqui judgment and representation by Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas to the Union government on June 6, 1996, seeking return of its land as it was not part of the disputed area. The Centre had rejected Nyas’s representation on August 14, 1996.

The Allahabad HC’s September 30, 2010, decision to divide the disputed land equally among three parties was challenged in the SC, which on May 9, 2011, stayed the HC ruling and ordered maintenance of status quo with regard to the land as of January 7, 1993, when the ordinance was passed for acquiring 67.703 acres. The Centre, in whom the acquired land vests, was not a party to either the title suits before the HC or in the appeals pending in the SC. The Centre said the acquisition was for a temporary period and could not be continued for ever.

The Centre’s application said, “The acquisition took place in the year 1993 and 26 years have passed. The original owners whose land (which were not even in dispute but were still acquired) are entitled to get back the same and the central government is duty bound to restore/revert/hand over the said land after undertaking the exercise as contemplated in Faruqui judgment.”