New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Feb 23, 2020-Sunday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Home / India News / SC could have ordered for hospital at disputed Ayodhya site: Delhi Muslim residents

SC could have ordered for hospital at disputed Ayodhya site: Delhi Muslim residents

Settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the top court in a historic judgement backed the construction of a Ram Temple by a trust at the disputed site, and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for a mosque in the Hindu holy town.

india Updated: Nov 10, 2019 08:52 IST
Press Trust of India
Press Trust of India
New Delhi
New Delhi, India - Oct. 14, 2019: A view of the Supreme Court of India while a hearing on the Babri Majid – Ram Janmabhoomi case is underway in New Delhi, India, on Monday, October 14, 2019. (Photo by Sanchit Khanna/ Hindustan Times)
New Delhi, India - Oct. 14, 2019: A view of the Supreme Court of India while a hearing on the Babri Majid – Ram Janmabhoomi case is underway in New Delhi, India, on Monday, October 14, 2019. (Photo by Sanchit Khanna/ Hindustan Times)(Sanchit Khanna/HT PHOTO)

A section of the Muslim community in the national capital on Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya issue, but some suggested that the apex court could have ordered to build a hospital or college instead at the disputed site.

Settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the top court in a historic judgement backed the construction of a Ram Temple by a trust at the disputed site, and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for a mosque in the Hindu holy town.

Many Muslim residents from Old Delhi to Seelampur area across the Yamuna were largely happy about it, even as they appealed to people to remain calm and maintain peace and amity.

Mohammad Usman, a resident of New Seelampur area, said the verdict is right but it could have been better if the court had ordered to make a hospital or college over there.

“But, we are happy that the dispute has been resolved by the Supreme Court,” the 25-year-old man said, a sentiment also expressed by 30-year-old Sanibul Ali of Brahmpuri.

Welcoming the SC verdict, Mohammad Hasibul, a resident of Seelampur area, said this was a sensitive issue which needed to be resolved.

“We don’t need a particular place for worship. The god is everywhere. We welcome the SC verdict. And, this sensitive and long-pending issue needed to be resolved,” 25-year-old Shakib Chaudhary, a resident of Jafrabad, said.

Faheem Baig, member of the Delhi Minority Commission (Advisory Board), said, “We welcome the verdict, but are not satisfied with some facts. Instead of giving authority to the government to grant five-acre land to the Waqf board, the court itself could have resolved this point also. In the coming days, this will become another issue.” “The verdict over the disputed land has come, but now what will happen to the persons who razed the Babri mosque,” he asked.

Some Muslim residents feel that the government should focus on providing employment to people now.

Mohammad Talib Nabadi, Imam of Kuan Wali Masjid in Jafrabad, said, “We will welcome this decision if the Muslim community get an assurance that no other mosque will be razed after this.” Ashrafuddin, who works as a labour in Jama Masjid, said, “Now that the matter has been resolved, the government should now focus on providing employment.” “We want employment to earn our livelihood. I am dissatisfied, but happy that this issue, which has been used as a political tool for several years, has been sorted,” he added.

The 16th century Babri mosque was demolished by a mob of Hindu karsevaks on December 6, 1992, triggering riots in various parts of the county.

Delivering a unanimous judgement on a case that has long polarised the country and frayed the secular tapestry of Indian society, a five-judge bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Saturday said the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the site was undisputed, and he is symbolically the owner of the land.

“Yet, it is also clear that the destruction of the 16th century three-domed structure by Hindu karsevaks, who want to build a Ram temple there, was wrong that “must be remedied,” the ruling said.