SC will start today Ram janmabhoomi land dispute hearing, know what is Ayodhya land dispute?

New Delhi: A seven-year Ayodhya land dispute pending trial in the Supreme Court is going to begin on Friday. At 2 pm, Special Benches of Justice Deepak Mishra, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazir will hear the initial arguments of all parties. It is believed that the bench will decide the date and time for the detailed hearing.

Let us know what is the Ayodhya land dispute: –

The Hindu side has been claiming that the disputed place in Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Rama. Who was defeated by Babur’s commander Mir Rest in 1530, made a mosque there.

There was a dispute between Hindus and Muslims on the occupation of the mosque. In December 1949, idols of Ram Lala and Sita were kept inside the mosque.

In January 1950, the first case was filed in Faizabad court. Gopal Singh Visharad asked for permission for worship. The second case was filed in December 1950. Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das, on behalf of Ram Janmabhoomi Trust, also sought permission for worship.

In December 1959, Nirmohi Akhara demanded that the temple be given in its possession. In December 1961, the Sunni Central Waqf Board filed a petition demanding the removal of statues and the occupation of the mosque.

In April 1964, Faizabad Court decided to hear all 4 accusations simultaneously. The hearing lasted very slow. In 1989, Allahabad High Court’s retired judge Devaki Nandan Agarwal filed a petition in the High Court on behalf of Ramlal Vermaam.

While hearing the petition, the High Court took the whole matter with them. The High Court said that the Special Judge of the three judges will hear all the 5 cases simultaneously.

The High Court began hearing in 2002. On 30 September 2010, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and D.V. Sharma’s Benches Decision came.

Based on the findings of the excavation carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India, it was believed that there was a grand Hindu temple there before the Babri Masjid. The recognition of the birth of Lord Rama for the many years of Ramlalah being established under the main domes and that place was also preferred in the decision.

However, the court also admitted that this historic fact can not be ignored as there was a building that was built in the form of a mosque for four and a half hundred years. Even before the Babri Masjid was formed, the court recognized the claim of the Nirmohi Akhara, who had declared his right to the temple there.

In view of all these things, the Bench ordered division of 2.77 acres of land in three equal parts.

The Bench decided that the place at which Ramlal’s idol is installed should be given to Ramlala Virajarman.

– Ram Chabutra and Sita rasoi area can be given to the nigohi Akhara..

– A third part of the remaining is given to Sunni Waqf board.

However, the High Court tried to balance the claims of all parties in its decision but no party was satisfied with this order.

Claiming on the entire land, the Hindu Mahasabha filed a petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of Ramlal Verajmaam. On the other hand Sunni Central Waqf Board also challenged the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court.

Later, many other parties filed petition in the Supreme Court. While hearing these petitions, the Supreme Court banned the order of the High Court on May 9, 2011. The Supreme Court also expressed surprise over the fact that when the High Court did not make any such demand for land sharing, how did the High Court make such a decision?

Now after 7 years the Supreme Court is going to hear the case. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has an important role in the court’s plea for hearing. Swamy filed a petition in the court, citing his right to worship and demanded to construct a temple in Ayodhya. The swami repeatedly pleaded with the court to hear the matter quickly. After all, these hearings are going to start now.

However, the main parties attached to the case say that many documents are still not ready to be presented in the court. In such a situation, the court will decide the date of a detailed hearing or the hearing will be postponed for a few more times, it will be a matter of watch.