File photo: Supreme Court of India Photograph:( ANI )
While five review petitions were filed by people supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPBL), one has been filed by Peace Party of India.
A total of six petitions were filed on Friday challenging the Supreme Court`s November 9 decision granting ownership rights to Hindus parties in Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.
While five review petitions were filed by people supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPBL), one has been filed by Peace Party of India. Mufti Hasbullah, Moulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Misbahuddin, Mohammad Umar and Haji Nahboob filed review petitions through advocates on record (AORs) MR Shamshad, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Irshad Ahmad and Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi.
All of these petitioners are supported by the AIMPBL.In a press release, AIMPBL said, "Muslim Personal Board General Secretary Mohammad Wali Rahmani expressed his satisfaction and extended gratitude and thanks to Rajiv Dhavan and other senior counsels and AORs.
"Rajiv Dhavan had appeared for Muslim parties in the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute suit and has recently been sacked by the AIMPBL. "Title could not have been given to Hindu parties on the basis of exclusive possession of entire site which never existed at any point in time with the Hindus, since it is admitted that Muslims entered and prayed at the site till 16th December 1949 and were later prevented from doing so because of the attachment while unfairly permitting Hindu worship following criminal trespass," one of the petitions read.
It further said, "The November 9 judgment erred in accepting the juristic personality of the idol entitled it to the middle dome of the courtyard after holding that the idol was illegally and forcibly put there. An idol, as the deity, cannot be simultaneously illegally placed and legally valid to claim the title."
"The Judgment in Review condones serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law including damaging the mosque and eventually destroying it," the review plea further said, adding that the court erred in not considering that there was a dedication of the mosque which was self-evident from the inscriptions, read petitions. On November 9, the apex court had directed for setting up of a trust to construct Ram Temple and provide five-acre land to Muslims in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.