SC rejects Govt’s plea on Ayodhya

The Supreme Court today rejected the Union Government’s plea for vacating an earlier order banning all religious activities on the 67 a...

The Supreme Court today rejected the Union Government’s plea for vacating an earlier order banning all religious activities on the 67 acres of undisputed land in Ayodhya. The court ordered that status quo be maintained at the site till the disposal of the title suits by the Allahabad high court.

A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Justice S Rajendra Babu, while dismissing the plea, said: ‘‘We are of the view that the order made by this court on March 13, as modified on march 14, 2002, should be operative until disposal of the pending title suits in the Allahabad high court.’’.

The Central Government had acquired both the 2.77 acres of disputed and 67 acres of undisputed land under The Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The court, holding that it had rightly ordered maintenance of status quo there, said that it was necessary ‘‘not only to maintain communal harmony but also to fulfil other objectives of the Act.’’

Story continues below this ad

It was envisaged under the Act that after the decision on the ownership of disputed land, the undisputed land could be utilised for access to the disputed area and for proper development of the surroundings.

The court observed: ‘‘The acquisition of the larger extent of land was incidental to the main purpose. Thus, the two acquired lands are intrinsically connected with one another and cannot be separated at this stage of proceedings for different treatment during the interregnum.’’

The Centre had pleaded that nothing in the Act prohibited it from transferring the management of the undisputed land to a trust or a body after making adequate provision for the access to the disputed area.

The court, however, pointed out that ‘‘if land is transferred to any other body or trust as provided under section 6 of the Act at this stage, further complications may arise.’’

Story continues below this ad

The court said ‘‘when for a long time, a particular state of affairs has prevailed — as in the present case for over a decade — and when the adjudication of the disputes which are pending before the High Court are reaching final stages, it will not be appropriate to disturb the state of affairs.’’

The court said that it was clear that the undisputed land, though vested in the Central Government, would have to be utilised in different manners depending upon the outcome of the litigation in respect of the disputed property. ‘‘Thus the manner or extent to which the adjacent land could be used, would depend upon the final outcome of the pending dispute in the High Court,’’ it said.