अयोध्या केस का 23वां दिन : मुस्लिम पक्षों ने नमाज पर निर्मोही अखाड़े के दावे को खारिज किया

अयोध्या विवाद की सुनवाई के 23वें दिन मुस्लिम संगठनों ने निर्मोही अखाड़े के इस दावे को खारिज कर दिया जिसमें कहा गया था कि विवादित स्थल पर मुस्लिमों का वैध मालिकाना हक नहीं हो सकता है.

सुप्रीम कोर्ट

Published : Sep 13, 2019, 12:08 AM IST

Updated : Sep 30, 2019, 10:07 AM IST

नई दिल्ली : उच्चतम न्यायालय में मुस्लिम संगठनों ने गुरुवार को निर्मोही अखाड़े के इस दावे को खारिज कर दिया कि अयोध्या में विवादित स्थल पर मुस्लिमों का वैध मालिकाना हक नहीं हो सकता है. क्योंकि उन्होंने 1934 से 1949 तक वहां नियमित नमाज नहीं पढ़ी. मुस्लिम संगठनों ने कहा कि अवैध कार्यों के लाभ हासिल नहीं किए जा सकते हैं.

अखाड़ा ने प्रधान न्यायाधीश रंजन गोगोई की अध्यक्षता वाली पांच न्यायाधीशों की संविधान पीठ को कहा था कि कब्जा पूरी तरह उसका है क्योंकि 1934 के दंगों के बाद 1949 तक मुस्लिमों को केवल शुक्रवार की नमाज पढ़ने की इजाजत थी और वह भी पुलिस संरक्षण में.

इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने अखाड़ा को विवादित 2.77 एकड़ राम जन्मभूमि - बाबरी भूमि का एक-तिहाई आवंटित किया था

हिंदू संगठन ने कहा था कि पुलिस संरक्षण में शुक्रवार की नमाज पढ़ना अखाड़ा के कब्जे की कानूनी प्रकृति में बदलाव नहीं लाएगा और इस निष्कर्ष पर नहीं पहुंचा जा सकता कि हिंदुओं और मुस्लिमों दोनों का संयुक्त कब्जा था.

सुन्नी वक्फ बोर्ड और मूल याचिकाकर्ता एम. सिद्दीक सहित अन्य की तरफ से पेश हुए वरिष्ठ वकील राजीव धवन ने यह कहते हुए हलफनामे का विरोध किया कि मुस्लिमों ने इसलिए नमाज नहीं पढ़ी क्योंकि उन्हें इसकी अनुमति नहीं दी गई.

पीठ ने कहा, आप (अखाड़ा) गैर कानूनी काम नहीं कर सकते और फिर उससे लाभ हासिल करना चाहते हैं. अगर आप अवैध काम नहीं भी करते हैं तो भी आप दूसरों के अवैध कार्यों से फायदा नहीं उठा सकते.

पीठ में न्यायमूर्ति एस ए बोबडे, न्यायमूर्ति डी वाई चंद्रचूड़, न्यायमूर्ति अशोक भूषण और न्यायमूर्ति एस ए नजीर भी शामिल हैं.

पढ़ें- सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अयोध्या केस की सुनवाई का 17वां दिन, जानें पूरा विवरण

उन्होंने कहा, 'मुस्लिम नमाज पढ़ने क्यों नहीं आए? वे इसलिए नमाज पढ़ने नहीं आते थे क्योंकि आपने उन्हें आने नहीं दिया गया.'

इसके बाद धवन ने छह दिसम्बर 1992 को विवादित ढांचे को गिराए जाने का जिक्र किया और कहा कि उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कहा था कि कुछ शरारती तत्वों ने ऐसा किया.

उन्होंने कहा कि निर्मोही अखाड़ा और अन्य लाभ का दावा नहीं कर सकते हैं.

(इनपुट भाषा)

पढ़ें- सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अयोध्या केस की सुनवाई का 17वां दिन, जानें पूरा विवरण

उन्होंने कहा कि निर्मोही अखाड़ा और अन्य लाभ का दावा नहीं कर सकते हैं.

(इनपुट भाषा)

ZCZC
PRI GEN LGL NAT
.NEWDELHI LGD44
SC-AYODHYA
Ayodhya hearing: Muslim parties rubbish Nirmohi Akhara's claim on namaz
New Delhi, Sep 12 (PTI) The Nirmohi Akhara's claim that Muslims cannot have a valid title over the disputed land at Ayodhya as they were not offering regular namaz there from 1934 to 1949 was rubbished by Muslim bodies on Thursday in the Supreme Court saying benefits of illegal acts cannot be reaped.
The Akhara, which was granted one-third of the disputed 2.77-acre Ram Jamanbhoomi-Babri land by the Allahabad High Court, had told the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that its possession was "exclusive" as after the 1934 riots till 1949, Muslims were allowed to offer Friday prayers only, that too under police protection.
Offering Friday prayers under police protection would not change the legal character of Akhara's possession and it cannot lead to a conclusion that Hindus and Muslims both had the "joint possession", the Hindu body had said.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board and others including original litigant M Siddiq, rebutted the submissions saying that the Muslims did not pray because they were not allowed to.
"You (Akhara) cannot commit an illegality and seek to reap benefits from it. Even if you do not create illegalities, still you cannot reap benefits of such illegal acts of others," he told the bench also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
"This is across board (arguments). Why Muslims did not come to pray? They did not come to pray because you did not let them," he said.
Dhavan then referred to the demolition of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992 and said that the Supreme Court had observed that some "miscreants" did it.
Even then Nirmohi Akahara and others cannot claim benefits, he said.
At the outset, Dhavan said that Akhara cannot overcome the legal hurdle that its 1959 lawsuit to re-claim alleged possession over the site from the government authorities after its attachment was time-barred under the limitation law.
He dealt with the submissions of the Akhara that its lawsuit was not time-barred as the cause of action, such as taking over of the possession by the receiver, was of the nature of "continuous wrong".
Muslim bodies have said that Akhara filed the lawsuit in 1959, almost nine years after the disputed site was attached by a court-appointed receiver on January 5, 1950 following alleged placing of idols under the central dome of the building by some miscreant on December 22-23, 1949.
The lawsuit should have been filed within six years of the alleged cause of action which arose in 1950 and hence, the 1959 lawsuit of 'Akhara' was time-barred, Dhavan said.
He said Akhara cannot claim relief against the magistrate who attached the property and gave it to receiver.
"You had the right is not enough. A party should must have a legal right on the basis of 'continuous wrong'," he said, adding that the terms like 'continuous wrong, belongs, belonging to and possession" have been used by Akhara to overcome the Limitation aspect.
He said Akhara was allowed to pray in outer courtyard of the site in 1885 and they were not in the possession of the inner courtyard till 1949 when trespass happened and idols were placed under the central dome.
He then dealt with the aspect of adverse possession of the site by Akhara from 1934 to 1949 and said that such a plea has to be set up on "legal" basis.
He said there should be specific pleadings in the case by Akhara as to when it became owner of the site under the doctrine of adverse possession.
Under the doctrine of adverse possession, a person, who is not the title holder, can become the owner if his possession is not challenged in courts for a period of 12 years.
Dhavan said so far as the inner courtyard was concerned, trespass took place on December 22-23, 1949 after idols were placed there and Akhara remained in illegal possession only till January 5, 1950 when the property was attached.
"The period is small so far as possession of inner courtyard is concerned," he said adding that this adverse possession doctrine cannot come in for Akhara's help.
Dhavan, however, supported the submission that Akhara was the 'shebait' of 'Ram Lalla' and said that it was competent to initiate the suit on behalf of the deity.
He asked as to what will happen if Akhara wins the case and the question would be as to who will own the property either Akhara or the deity through its the next friend.
He was referring to the another lawsuit filed by the deity through next friend Deoki Nandan Agrawal seeking the ownership of the same property.
The advancing of arguments would commence on Friday.
The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land equally among Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the Supreme Court against the verdict. PTI SJK RKS
ZMN
09122046
NNNN

Last Updated : Sep 30, 2019, 10:07 AM IST

For All Latest Updates

TAGGED:

hearing of 23rd day

23rd day of ayodhya

ayodhya case in SC

AYODHYA case on 23rd day

अयोध्या सुनवाई

अयोध्या केस

अयोध्या केस का 23वां दिन : मुस्लिम पक्षों ने नमाज पर निर्मोही अखाड़े के दावे को खारिज किया

Quick Links / Policies

Get Us On

ख़ास ख़बरें

Delhi News Today Live : दिल्ली न्यूज़ Sat Nov 23 2024 ताजा समाचार

एक विदाई ऐसी भी...! ग्रेटर नोएडा में हेलिकॉप्टर से विदा हुई दुल्हन, 14 किलोमीटर दूर है ससुराल

ग्राहकों की मौज...BSNL सिर्फ 201 रुपये में दे रही है 90 दिनों के वैलिडिटी के साथ इंटरनेट

'1000% ठीक हो जाओगी', बिग बॉस 18 में आईं कैंसर पेशेंट हिना खान से बोले सलमान खान, रोने पड़ीं एक्ट्रेस