Who has title over (ie, who is the rightful owner of) the 2.77 acres of land on which the Babri Masjid once stood?

It is important to note that this case predates the destruction of the Babri Masjid by kar sevaks in December 1992 and is not related to that per se. Criminal proceedings relating to that incident continue, and have unfortunately not been heard with the urgency demonstrated by the apex court in this case.

1959: THE NIRMOHI AKHARA FILES ITS CLAIM

In 1959 , the first proper title suit was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara, who claimed ownership over the land and challenged the decision of the district court in 1949 to place the land under receivership. They claimed that their mahant (chief priest) and sarbrahakar (administrator) have been managing the site and been responsible for prayers to Lord Ram there since their founding in the middle ages – what is known as ‘shebaitship’. As a result, they included an argument that they were being denied from properly carrying out their duties and rites of worship after the appointment of the receiver. The Akhara’s ownership claim rests on two grounds: The Babri Masjid was built after destroying a Hindu temple that was meant to commemorate the birthplace of Lord Ram. This means the site was Hindu and the mosque was not in fact a mosque at all, as it was against the tenets of Islam. Muslims have not been worshipping at the mosque since 1934, while the Akhara has been doing so since then, and has been in possession of the site since that time.

1961: THE SUNNI WAQF BOARD STAKES ITS CLAIM

In 1961 , the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP, filed its own title suit, along with several Muslim residents of Ayodhya. The Sunni Waqf Board challenged the receivership granted to the administration, and also challenged the suits filed by Visharad and the NIrmohi Akhara. They asked for a declaration that the Babri Masjid was a mosque that was part of waqf property, and that the area around it was a Muslim graveyard. Legally, their arguments rested on two basic grounds: The land belonged to them as it had been granted as waqf property in Mughal times, and Muslims had been worshipping at the site till 1949, when the idols were placed inside the mosque. In 1886, the Faizabad court had rejected the Hindu claims for title over the area, and upheld the claims of the Mutawalli of the Babri Masjid. Following the principle of res judicata, this now determined the legal status of ownership going forward, and would bind any court looking into the matter.

1989: LORD RAM ENTERS THE FRAY

Nothing happened in the cases till 1986, when an application was made by a Hindu advocate Umesh Chandra Pandey for the locks to be opened and Hindus be allowed inside the disputed structure to worship the idols. This request was granted by a district judge and the gates were opened on 1 February 1986. The Muslim parties approached the Allahabad High Court for a stay on this order. The court passed an order for maintenance of status quo pending a decision on the cases, but no progress took place to decide ownership of the cases. On 1 July 1989 , a new title suit was filed by Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman (the god’s idol, also known as Ram Lalla Virajman) and Sri Ram Janmabhoomi (the birthplace). These deities were represented by their ‘next friend’, retired judge Deoki Nandan Agarwala, who was associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). Indian law has long recognised that deities can be considered legal persons, and so this suit was included without batting any eyelids. The deities’ arguments for ownership of the site were: This was where Lord Ram was born as an avatar of Lord Vishnu, and the Janmabhoomi had been a site of worship since ‘time immemorial’. On this basis, nobody could own the site but the deity himself (represented through the idol) and the manifestation of the birthplace – the granting of the waqf for the mosque was therefore illegitimate. The Babri Masjid was not a valid mosque, as it included features not allowed under Islamic law including certain engravings.

CONSEQUENCES OF BABRI MASJID DESTRUCTION

The destruction of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 violated several court orders on maintenance of status quo. The developments around this also led to certain changes in the petitions filed by the parties, and to additional cases in the courts. The Sunni Waqf Board now had to ask for the site to be declared a ‘public mosque’ as the structure had been demolished. The suit by the deities now involved prayers to allow the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, a VHP-affiliated trust, to build a temple on the site. The Nyas bought much of the land surrounding the disputed site, which led to the Centre having to acquire 67 acres of land around original 2.77 acres. This acquisition by the Centre was challenged in the Supreme Court in the Ismail Faruqui case in 1994. The apex court upheld the government’s actions but made several offhand observations that would prove controversial. The Aslam Bhure judgment of 2003 reiterated maintenance of status quo till the ownership claims were decided and said no construction could take place on the acquired land till then.

2010: THE HIGH COURT’S VERDICT

Hearings in the high court took place intermittently between 1993 and 2002, based on the arguments outlined above. In 2002, the court asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct excavations at the site. The ASI submitted its report in 2003, which included some findings about an ancient structure in the ruins. On 30 September 2010 , the Allahabad High Court delivered a judgment that disappointed all the parties.

The Sunni Waqf Board and the other Muslim parties, represented by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, have focussed on the fact that the land belonged to them under law, as per Mughal era-grants, recognised by the British-era administration, and a judgment of the courts.

The Akhara’s legal case rested strongly on the concept of adverse possession, ie, its possession over the area and conduct of worship since at least 1934. Represented by senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, it sought to emphasise its long-running shebaitship, which it argued was not affected by no longer having possession when the receiver was appointed in 1949. Interestingly, the Akhara found itself at odds with Ram Lalla Virajman, as their claims of ownership technically clash, as do their differing versions of how Lord Ram has been worshipped in Ayodhya.

RAM LALLA AND RAM JANMABHOOMI

The deities were represented by a slew of veteran lawyers including senior advocates K Parasaran, CS Vaidyanathan and Shyam Divan. They relied heavily on historical and archaeological records to argue that there had in fact been a temple on the site since antiquity, to justify their claims to the land. The ASI report as well as several independent investigations, books and maps were referred to for support. The deities also argued that the British had themselves acknowledged in multiple records that Hindus offered prayers at the site, and noted how a wall had been built to separate the two communities. Another key legal argument raised by them to counter the claims of the Sunni Waqf Board was that of limitation: that the Muslim parties had taken too long to file their case after having lost possession of the site (first to the Hindus and then to the receiver), and so their claims were time-bound.