NewsRecent

Supreme Court Landmark Judgement On Ayodhya Land Dispute Case

The Supreme Court on Saturday issued a crucial verdict on the Ayodhya dispute that has been going on for centuries. The Constitutional Bench, headed by Chief Justice Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was unanimous in its decision. The Shia Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhada petitions were dismissed by the court on the controversial site. It is undeniable that Rama was born in Ayodhya. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi commented that proprietary rights should be decided in accordance with prescribed legal principles.

Hindus believe that the womb is under the main cupola, and that the two religions pray at the site of the conflict. Muslims also agree that Rama was born in Ayodhya. Prior to the construction of the mosque there was a structure on the site, the archeological department says that there is no mosque in the disputed area and there is a Hindu structure.
The Chief Justice made it clear that proprietary rights are determined in accordance with prescribed legal principles and Article 47 applies only when the judge has orders. The Sunni Waqf Board has filed a lawsuit after 12 years, claiming that the Mughals have not been able to prove their right to time.

On Friday, Muslims commented that the only evidence presented was prayers. The Supreme Court erred in the earlier judgment of the Allahabad High Court for the sharing of the controversial land in Ayodhya. It is clear that there is no publication of the controversial land. The Supreme Court has allotted the entire controversial land to the Ram temple. The Supreme Court has directed the UP and central governments to allocate five acres of land to Muslims in Ayodhya. The mosque is said to be an alternative site for construction

The CJI has revealed that the decision will be based on archaeological reports. According to revenue records, the controversial land belongs to the government. He explained that no one claimed ownership over the controversial site. The CJI stated that the beliefs of the two religions were taken into account before the decision. Archaeological reports say there is a shrine there.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button