Ayodhya dispute: SC posts matter for further hearing on Dec 5 | india-news | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 20, 2017-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Ayodhya dispute: SC posts matter for further hearing on Dec 5

The Allahabad high court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre-site between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla in 2010.

india Updated: Aug 11, 2017 16:04 IST
HT Correspondent
The Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished by Hindu radicals on December 6, 1992.
The Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished by Hindu radicals on December 6, 1992. (HT File/ Sanjay Sharma)

The Supreme Court posted further hearings on petitions challenging the Allahabad high court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case till December 5 on Friday.

A three-member bench, comprising justices Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Naseer, began the hearing at 2 pm. Incidentally, Justice Misra is set to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on August 28.

Incumbent CJI JS Khehar constituted the special bench after BJP leader Subramanian Swamy approached the apex court on July 21 to seek an early hearing of the civil dispute between Hindu and Muslim organisations over ownership of the Ram temple-Babri Masjid land.

The Allahabad high court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre-site between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla in 2010. The three-member Lucknow bench passed the verdict by a 2:1 majority.

However, the dispute has become more complicated with Uttar Pradesh’s Shia Wakf Board seeking to become a party in the case. The new applicant, in a recent affidavit filed before the top court, said it favoured relocation of the mosque to an area where Muslims reside.

Sources told HT that the Supreme Court registry is still in the process of translating court records in the case. An earlier apex court order had ordered that the papers be translated and digitised because it proceeds with its final hearing in the matter.

Swamy made his plea for an early hearing on the grounds that the main appeals against the high court order have been pending for the last seven years. He also wanted to be made a party in the case, citing his fundamental right to worship at the site.