While it may take some time to go deep into the detailed reasons for arriving at the historic decision by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court in the four title suits on the Ayodhya dispute, it is clear that the judgment has struck a “conciliatory” note, and could become the guiding factor for the Centre to try for a “consensus” on accepting the findings as the judges have handed it the task of dividing the land as proposed.

Former attorney-general Soli J. Sorabjee had in fact predicted in an interview to this newspaper only four days back that the high court verdict might not be explicitly in favour of one party or another, but “by indicating certain proposals, or making certain suggestions ... (it) may help the parties to reach an amicable settlement.” It appears that the high court has tried to do exactly that.
Since the idol of Lord Ram had been placed in a “makeshift temple” in a place where the central dome of the demolished structure stood, there was “unanimity” among all three judges that this place, as Hindus believe, “is the janamsthan (birthplace)” of Lord Ram, and hence it should not be disturbed and must be handed over to them.
Justices S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agrawal and D.V. Sharma, while writing separate judgments, concurred on this vital point.
“It is declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol (of Ram) is kept ... will be allotted to Hindus in the final decree,” Justice Khan wrote in his order. Concurring with Justice Khan, Justice Agrawal said: “It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e. the disputed structure, being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and the place of birth of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of Hindus, belong to plaintiffs 5 (Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajaman) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.”
Justice Sharma, in response to Issue No. 11 (on whether the property in the suit in the site is the Janambhoomi of Shri Ram, has said that the issue is “decided against the plaintiff (UP Sunni Waqf Board)”.
Justices Khan and Agrawal, in a majority opinion, have drawn a roadmap for the Centre — the “receiver” of the disputed land as per the 1993 Ayodhya Land Acquisition Act, upheld by the Supreme Court — to divide among the three claimants — Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajaman (the deity himself), Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara — in equal proportion, with the Akhara getting the “Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi”.
The conciliatory tone of the verdict is reflected in Justice Khan’s observation that “both the parties, Muslims as well as Hindus, are held to be in a joint possession of the entire premises in dispute” — as both of them have “failed” to prove their title strictly as per the provisions of Evidence Act.
Both Justice Khan and Justice Agrawal made it clear that while partitioning the land among the three parties, the share of Muslims should not be less than “one-third” of the total 2.77 acres of the disputed area.
While appeals are bound to be filed in the Supreme Court, the formula “devised” by the high court has certainly laid down the basis for deciding the issue now more with a spirit of “mediation” rather than strictly within the four corners of the law. The high court has cast a greater responsibility on the Centre to take further steps in three months.
“The land which is available with the Government of India, acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of the property, shall be made available to the concerned parties in such a manner ... that all three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled,” Justice Agrawal said in his order.
While directing the three parties — Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara — to approach the Centre to act upon the verdict, the high court reminded the Union government of its responsibility as “receiver” of the land to follow the guidelines of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in its 1994 verdict.
“The Government of India shall act in accordance with the above directions and also as contained in the (1994) judgment of the apex court in the Dr Ismail Farooqi case,” the high court said in its pathbreaking ruling.