Ayodhya a pure land dispute: Apex court

Hearing deferred as transcripts yet to be translated into English ◗

The Supreme Court on Thursday made it clear that it will deal with the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute purely as a land dispute and said it will not entertain any intervening application in the matter for now.

A three- judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, deferred the hearing on a batch of 14 appeals till March 14 when it was brought to its notice that some transcripts, furnished as evidence, were yet to be translated into English.

Clarifying that it never intended to conduct a daily hearing in the matter, the bench, which also included Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, said that applications from those who were not a party to the matter before the Allahabad HC will be dealt with at a later date.

The bench also directed the registry to supply copies of videos of Archaeological Survey of India shot at the site, which were submitted as evidence before the Allahabad high court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday made it clear that it will deal with the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid title dispute case “purely as a land dispute” and posted the batch of 14 appeals for hearing from March 14.

A three- judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer deferred the hearing when it was brought to the notice of the court that certain transcripts were yet to be translated into English.

The Bench, while granting two weeks for completion of translation, asked the Registry to supply copies of videos of Archaeological Survey of India, which were submitted as evidence before the Allahabad high court.

Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta for the UP government submitted

that 504 transcripts including Ramayana, Bhagwad Gita and Mahabharata and other scriptures had already been translated into English and furnished to the court. Further depositions and statements of 87 witnesses had also been brought on record. However, counsel for one of the Muslim parties said certain documents were yet to be translated and the court granted two weeks for completion of translation.

Senior counsel C. S. Vaidyanathan, along with senior counsel K. Parasaran, appearing for the Lord Ram Lalla, suggested that propositions to be argued by each counsel be submitted in advance so that arguments could be confined to such propositions.

However, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the main appellant Siddique, said no such proposition was necessary and he should be permitted to argue in his own way. He said he would preface his argument that the order of the high court was a gross injustice to his client. When Mr. Vaidyanathan insisted on a day- to- day hearing, the CJI said “once the hearing starts it will go on considering the importance of the case.”

On March, the court will hear a batch of appeals against an Allahabad high court verdict that directed division of 2.77 acres of land of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi- Bab r i Masjid site in Ayodhya into three parts among Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara.

Those who filed the appeals included the Sunni Central Wakf Board, UP; the Nirmohi Akhara; the All- India Hindu Mahasabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman. There are voluminous records, scripts and documents in seven languages, Sanskrit, Pali, Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Punjabi and Urdu, which are to be translated into English.

On behalf of Hindus, it was argued that having accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, there was no reason whey 1/ 3rd land was to be given to Muslims for construction of a mosque. They wanted that the entire area be granted to the Hindus to facilitate construction of Ram Mandir.

The appeal on behalf of Muslims raised several questions including whether the myth, belief or faith could be substituted by history for the purposes of application of law for the time being in force.

‘ Will deal with the Ram JanmabhoomiBabri Masjid title dispute case purely as a land dispute’