Sept. 30: 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.
The former attorney-general, Mr 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 .”
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.