© 2002 VNN
|
WORLD  Ayodhya's Undisputed Land FROM THE INDIAN EXPRESS INDIA, Mar 11 (VNN) — (The writer is a former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and a leading member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad) Ayodhya's Undisputed land: First, a few ground rules M. RAMA JOIS This article is intended to remove the wrong impression created in the minds of the people that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is proposing to commence construction of Ram Mandir on the disputed area at Ayodhya against the court order, which has created tension among the people. In fact and in truth, the VHP is only proposing to commence construction on totally undisputed land belonging to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, which is at present in the hands of the Central government.
While upholding the validity of acquisition of lands by the Central government, the Court made a clear distinction between two categories of lands thus: The Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is the undisputed owner of 43 acres of land in Ayodhya. It is on this undisputed land that the VHP proposes to start construction of the Ram temple to fulfill the aspirations of the people (a) Disputed land, namely small area on which Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, as described in the white paper, stood, including the inner courtyard and outer courtyard of the structure before it was demolished on December 6, 1992. (b) Large extent of about 67 acres of undisputed land in the locality, belonging to various persons, including 43 acres belonging to Rama Janmabhoomi Nyas. As regards the disputed land, the Supreme Court held that the disputed land shall be with the Central government as a receiver and it shall be handed over to the party succeeding in the suits pending before the Allahabad High Court. The VHP is not proposing to touch even an inch of that disputed land. As far as the undisputed lands are concerned, the relevant portion of the judgment reads: The narration of facts indicates that the acquisition of properties under the Act affects the rights of both the communities and not merely those of the Muslim community. The interest claimed by the Muslims is only over the disputed site where the mosque stood before its demolition. The objection of the Hindus to this claim has to be adjudicated. The remaining entire property acquired under the Act is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims. A large part thereof comprises of properties of Hindus of which the title is not even in dispute. The justification given for acquisition of the larger area, including the property respecting which title is not disputed, is that the same is necessary to ensure that the final outcome of adjudication should not be rendered meaningless by the existence of properties belonging to Hindus in the vicinity of the disputed structure in case the Muslims are found entitled to the disputed site. This obviously means that in the event of the Muslims succeeding in the adjudication of the dispute requiring the disputed structure to be handed over to the Muslim community, their success should not be thwarted by denial of property access to, and enjoyment of rights in, the disputed area by exercise of rights of ownership of Hindu owners of the adjacent properties. Obviously, it is for this reason that the adjacent area has also been acquired, to make available to the successful party, that part of it which is considered necessary for proper enjoyment of the fruits of success on the final outcome to the adjudication. It is clear that one of the purposes of the acquisition of the adjacent properties is the ensurement of the effective enjoyment of the disputed site by the acquisition of the adjacent area is incidental to the main purpose and cannot be termed unreasonable. (Para 49) However, at a later stage, when the exact area acquired which is needed for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition can be determined, it would not merely be permissible but also desirable that the superfluous excess area is released from acquisition and reverted to its earlier owner. The challenge to acquisition of any part of the adjacent area on the ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the objective of settling the case the superfluous area is not returned to its owner even after the exact area needed for the purpose is finally determined, it would be open to the owner of any such property to then challenge the superfluous acquisition being unrelated to the purpose of acquisition. Rejection of the challenge on this ground to acquisition at this stage by the undisputed owners of any such property situated in the vicinity of the disputed area is with the reservation of this liberty to them. There is no contest to their claim of quashing the acquisition of the adjacent properties by anyone except the Central government which seeks to justify the acquisition on the basis of necessity. On the construction of the statute made by us, this appears to be the logical, appropriate and just view to take in respect of such adjacent properties in which none other than the undisputed owner claims title and interest. (Para 50) The conclusion at Para 96 reads: The challenge to the acquisition of any part of the adjacent area on the ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the professed objective of settling the long-standing dispute cannot be examined in this stage. However, the area found to be superfluous on the exact area needed for the purpose being determined on adjudication of the dispute, must be restored to the undisputed owners. From the above portion of the judgment, it is clear that under the Act the Central government acquired large extent of lands which are undisputed lands, major portion of which belongs to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and the purpose was for ensuring effective implementation of the decree in the event of the decree of the Court in the pending suits going in favour of Muslims. The Supreme Court clearly stated in Para 50 of the judgment that there was no contest to the claim of quashing the acquisition of the adjacent properties by anyone except the Central government which seeks to justify the acquisition on the basis of necessity. The Supreme Court has also made it clear that at a later stage the Central government has to retain in its hands only some portion of undisputed lands adjacent to the disputed land necessary for use of disputed area to be given to Muslim community for effective implementation of the decree of the Court in the pending title suits before the Allahabad High Court, if and when the suit is adjudicated in their favour. The Court has also expressly stated that after specifying the land required for the above purpose, the rest of the undisputed land should be handed over to the undisputed owner. The Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is the undisputed owner of 43 acres. It is on this undisputed land only that the VHP is proposing to commence construction, stating that it is necessary to fulfill the aspirations of billions of people as Central government has not returned the undisputed land, as indicated by the Court, though eight years are over from the date of judgment. It is this undisputed land on which shilanyas was done during November 1989. The controversy can be solved either by handing over unwanted surplus land belonging to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas or by granting permission to the VHP to use it pending specification of the extent. Whatever that may be, the Muslim community has no interest at all in this land and their right and interest is only in respect of the disputed land, as clearly stated in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The above fact is made clear in the representation given by the VHP to the Honerable Prime Minister on February 27. This fact should be made known to the people in general and Muslims in particular by all to avoid unnecessary tension, enmity and social disharmony by creating non-existent dispute over undisputed land. Contact VNN about this story  Send this story to a friend
|
