Ramajambhumi will be the seal of the Supreme: Lalla Ka Temple

Supreme Court verdict of five judges on the basis of fact and law, not a belief that appeals to both Hindus and Muslims

Currently the government will take over the disputed site, the trust will be formed in three months: Supreme

Supreme Court dismisses all claims of Nirmohi Akhada and Shiite Muslim Waqf Board with a 1045-page verdict

Archaeological department report that there was a temple before the mosque proved, Sunni waqf board failed to prove right

New delhi date. November 9, 2019, Saturday

The controversial site in Ayodhya will eventually become the Ram temple, a Constitutional Bench of five Supreme Court judges has directed Ramlala Party to hand over the land in its judgment.

The Supreme has stated that the Sunni Waqf Board has failed to provide evidence that it owns the land. On the other hand, reports prepared by the Indian Archaeological Survey Department, ASI based on scientific approaches, prove that the mosque was the temple before the disputed site.

The dispute will be handed over to the Ramallah party. When Muslims will be allotted five acres of land at any other site where they can build a mosque or any other building as they wish.

The controversy over the years has finally come to an end with the Supreme Court's 1045-page ruling. In its ruling with the Supreme Court, it has ordered that a trust be formed within three months in view of the disputed site.

The trust will look into the construction of the temple. On the other hand, there were five parties - Ramlala, Sunni Waqf Board, Shia Waqf Board, Ramjam Bhuminayas and Nirmohi Akhada - all of which rejected the application of Shi'a Waqf Board, Ramjam Bhumnayas and Nirmohi Akhara.

This decision has been given only in view of the Sunni Waqf Board and Ramlala's plea. In which the Supreme Court has tried to pass judgment in favor of both parties. The Ramlala party will be entrusted with the disputed site and there will be a Ram temple, while on the other hand five acres of land will be given to the Sunni Waqf Board by the Aarthwa State Government.

This verdict is given in the light of the law, not of any faith or belief. The five-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, besides Gogoi, also included Judge AS Bobde, Judge Dhananjay Shaywant Chandrachud, Judge Ashok Bhushan, Judge Abdul Nazir.

Referring to the unanimous decision of the five judges, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that whatever documents were submitted before the court, it was clear that before 1885 Hindus did not worship within the disputed site. Ramachabutra, an outsider, used to worship Sita in cooking.

Later, the court also said that the demolition of the building in 1992 is blasphemous and a violation of the law. After telling all these facts, the Bench said that the evidence and documentation presented to us proves that there was no flat land before the mosque was built but there was no masonry, even before the mosque there was evidence in ASI report. Have come up against.

The ASI report has been prepared on the basis of scientific facts which cannot be denied. The court also said that ASI did not know enough about the mosque to be demolished after the temple was demolished. Later, the court said that the Muslim parties had failed to prove their claim on the disputed site.

On the other hand, the ASI also has a report in the documents submitted by the Ramlala party which states that the disputed site was earlier a temple. Therefore, the ownership of the site is entrusted to the Ramlala party while the government allocates five acres of land in Ayodhya for the Muslims. It was only with this verdict that the years-old dispute finally came to an end.

It is noteworthy that the entire matter was going on in the Allahabad High Court till 2010, the High Court in its judgment asked to divide the disputed site into three parts, one part Nirmohi Akhada, one part Ramlala and one part to the Sunni Waqf Board.

Later, about 14 petitions challenging the verdict were made in the Supreme Court, the case has been running in the Supreme Court since 2010 but its trial started this year and lasted for 40 days on a daily hearing. The daily 40-day trial ended just last month.

And finally, the Supreme Court has passed its verdict on this matter. Now the Sunni Waqf Board has two options on this whole matter, one to accept five acres of land and file a review petition for the verdict in the Supreme Court.

Important matters of Supreme Court judgment of Ayodhya

* The tragic fact that the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992 was not the site where the mosque became, there was already masonry.

* The credibility of this organization may be questioned if the AAI report is not taken into account.

* ASI's report proves that something broke and became a mosque, but the temple itself was not destroyed.

* Evidence seems to indicate that Hindus used to worship outside the place years ago and Muslims did not mind.

Hindus also worshiped at the rally, which proved to be a railing to separate both Hindu Muslims at the site in 1856-57.

* The Muslims could not prove that they had proof of their rights and rights on the outside and inside the entire place.

* Inappropriate even to demolish the mosque but the Sunni Waqf Board completely failed to provide proper proof of ownership in the Ayodhya case.

* The Sunni Waqf Board failed to prove the right to the land

* The claim of the arena was just management enough which is not acceptable.

* The claim on the premises of the Shi'a Muslim Waqf Board is baseless.

* The archeological department report submitted by the Ramlala party is the remains of the Ram temple.

* The archeological department's report cannot be denied, there is no evidence that the mosque was formerly a field.

* But the report that there was a religious building of Hindus before the mosque has been proved in the report which cannot be denied.

* As the Sunni Waqf Board fails to prove the right, the land is currently entrusted to the government.

* The government will formulate a trust and plan to build a Ram temple in three months. The choice of trustees shall be exempt from the Government.

* Petitions filed by the Nirmohi Akhada and the Shiite Board demanding ownership of the disputed site.

Arguments from Hindu party advocates

* Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya. The cultural male of the Ram country.

* Ram's birthplace is the place where the main turret is located.

* Limit Purashtam The ancient temple of Ram was demolished and a mosque was built.

* Padma Purana and Skanda Purana also mention Ramjanmastha.

In 1528, Babar's general, Mir Baqi, demolished the temple and built a mosque

* The Indian Archeological Department report also found evidence of a temple.

* The stone found in the excavation found symbols of Hindu deities and Hinduism.

* In 1885, the Faizabad judge believed that the mosque was demolished in 1528.

The arguments of the lawyers of the Muslim parties

Hindu Parties argue that Ram's birth place is just below the mosque

* In the scriptures mention of Ram Janma is made but no specific location is specified.

* The place where the mosque was built in Babar in 1528 was empty, there was no temple.

* The mosque is owned by the Mughal period.

* The wall that ASI found below the mosque may be from Idgah, not the temple.

* The figurines found in the excavation may be an antique toy or a statue.

* The stones that are found in the stones are not clear, but also incredible.

Hindus also worshiped, but the ownership of the Muslims remained.