Nirmohi opposes govt plea on Ayodhya land

NEW DELHI: Nirmohi Akhara, which along with Ram Lalla and Sunni Wakf Board was given one-third of the 2.77-acre core disputed land in Ayodhya by the Allahabad high court, moved the Supreme Court on Tuesday opposing the Centre’s surprise move for return of the surplus 67 acres to its original owners.

On January 28, the Centre had filed an application in the SC seeking permission to return the 67 acres of surplus land, except the 2.77-acre disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land — the core of the dispute — to its original owners, including Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, which owns 42 acres.

The land in question was acquired by the Union government through the ‘Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Ordinance’ on January 7, 1993, in the wake of the demolition of Babri Masjid in what was seen as an attempt to pre-empt any construction by the Nyas in the immediate vicinity of the disputed site. The ordinance was later replaced by an Act bearing the same nomenclature.

Opposing the Centre’s application, Nirmohi Akhara said it was the owner of Sumitra Bhawan and the adjacent land, Sita Koop, Sita Koop Mandir, Dwaraka Das Mandir, Saligram Bhagwan temple and Lomas temple, all of which were demolished by the state government after acquisition of the surplus 67 acres in 1993. It said which party is entitled to what part of the disputed area would be known only when the title suit was decided. Proper utilisation of the surplus land for amenities like approach road and pilgrim facilities could be worked out only once that stage was crossed, it added. “At present, it is not known who will be the ultimate successful party and, therefore, it cannot at present be assessed what the extent of superfluous area will be,” it said.

It is not the first time that Nirmohi Akhara has diverged from the stand of other Hindu claimants to the disputed site.

During hearing of the appeals against the Allahabad HC judgment dividing the core disputed land into three equal parts, the SC had suggested mediation as an alternative mechanism to resolve the 70-year-old litigation.

Hindu parties, including the counsel for idol Ram Lalla, had vehemently opposed mediation. But Nirmohi Akhara had sided with Muslim parties and expressed willingness to join the mediation process, thus paving the way for the apex court to appoint a panel headed by retired SC judge F M I Kalifulla and comprising noted dispute resolution professional and senior advocate Sriram Panchu and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar to carry out negotiations with the parties.

Though it was believed that the expanse of the disputed land was 2.77 acres and the Allahabad HC had divided this plot equally among the three parties, the Centre sprang a surprise by limiting the disputed area to 0.313 acre by taking only the plinth area of the demolished three-domed structure.

In its application challenging the Centre’s move to return land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and other original owners, the Nirmohi Akhada said, “The central government cannot, without rescinding the Ayodhya land acquisition Act, which has been upheld by the SC, release the land to original owners as it would run counter to the SC judgment. The surplus land cannot be released from acquisition by the Centre to frustrate the object and purpose of acquisition. A large number of temples managed by mahants associated with Nirmohi Akhara were located in the so-called surplus land.”

Questioning the Centre’s preference to return 42 acres to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, the Akhara alleged that the Nyas was established on the basis of a fraudulent deed and said it had challenged the said deed in a suit before the munsif court in Faizabad, which was pending since 1993.