Almost seven decades after the first court case was filed over the Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in post-independence India, in 2019, the country’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict paving the way for the construction of Ram Mandir.

With the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony in the Indian city of Ayodhya underway, on January 22&nbsp;let’s take a look at the significant events leading up to the moment that millions across the country, if not the world, have been looking forward to for years now.&nbsp;

WATCH |&nbsp;Key Oppn leaders have decided to skip Jan 22 consecration, but what are they doing on the day?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/key-oppn-leaders-have-decided-to-skip-jan-22-consecration-but-what-are-they-doing-on-the-day-680962/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

1528: Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur.

1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files a plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. The court rejects the plea.

1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure.

1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla.&nbsp;

1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mauritius-grants-special-break-to-officials-for-ram-mandir-inauguration-celebrations-679421">Mauritius grants special break to officials for Ram Mandir inauguration celebrations</a>

1961: A petitioner filed a suit pleading for the restoration of the property to Muslims.&nbsp;

1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.

February 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers.

August 14, 1989: Allahabad High Court ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.

December 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished.

April 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area.

1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad High Court challenging various aspects of the Act.

October 24, 1994: Supreme Court says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

April 2002: High Court begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.

March 13, 2003: Supreme Court says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature is allowed at the acquired land.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/ram-temple-inauguration-here-is-seven-day-schedule-of-vedic-rituals-starting-tuesday-680274">Ram Temple inauguration: Here is the seven-day schedule of vedic rituals starting Tuesday</a>

March 14, 2003: Supreme Court says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad High Court to maintain communal harmony.

September 30, 2010: High Court, in a 2:1 majority, rules division of the disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

May 9, 2011: Supreme Court stays High Court verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.

February 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in Supreme Court seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site

March 21, 2017: Chief Justice of India JS Khehar suggests an out-of-court settlement among rival parties.

August 7, 2017: The Supreme Court constitutes a three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.

August 8, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.

September 11, 2017: Supreme Court directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.

November 20, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.

December 1, 2017:&nbsp;32&nbsp;civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ram-mandir-national-award-winning-artisan-crafted-diamond-studded-replica-of-temple-in-108-days-680582">Ram Mandir: National award-winning artisan crafts diamond-studded replica of temple in ‘108 days’</a>

February 8, 2018: Supreme Court starts hearing the civil appeals.

March 14, 2018: Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.

April 6, 2018: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in Supreme Court to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.

July 6, 2018: UP government tells the Supreme Court some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of observation in the 1994 verdict.

July 20, 2018: Supreme Court reserves verdict.

September 27, 2018: Supreme Court declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ram-mandir-who-are-the-shankaracharyas-how-are-they-related-to-adi-shankara-heres-all-you-need-to-know-680519">Ram Mandir: Who are the shankaracharyas? How are they related to Adi Shankara? Here’s all you need to know</a>

January 2019: SC set up a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to hear the case.&nbsp;

April 2019: Nirmohi Akhara opposes Centre’s plea to return acquired land around Ayodhya site to owners.

November 9, 2019: Supreme Court delivers landmark verdict, ending the almost 70-year dispute, and ordering that the disputed 2.77 acres of land be transferred to a trust, to be set up by the Indian government, for the construction of Ram Temple. The apex court also ordered allocating five acres to Muslims in Ayodhya for building a mosque.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ram-mandir-inauguration-modis-function-congress-leader-rahul-gandhi-takes-a-dig-at-indian-pm-680512">Ram Mandir inauguration ‘Modi’s function’: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi takes a dig at Indian PM</a>

August 5, 2020: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the construction of the Ram Mandir&nbsp;

January 22, 2024: Pran Pratishtha (consecration ceremony) of Ram Lalla's idol is underway with&nbsp;more than 7,000 people from&nbsp;different walks of life invited to witness the historic moment.&nbsp;

Several Indian states have declared a holiday or a&nbsp;'half-day,' to mark the occasion.&nbsp;Meanwhile,&nbsp;the Union government has closed&nbsp;central government offices, central institutions and others for half a day for celebrations.&nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Almost seven decades after the first court case was filed over the Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in post-independence India, in 2019, the country’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict paving the way for the construction of Ram Mandir.

Almost seven decades after the first court case was filed over the Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in post-independence India, in 2019, the country’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict paving the way for the construction of Ram Mandir. With the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony in the Indian city of Ayodhya underway, on January 22 let’s take a look at the significant events leading up to the moment that millions across the country, if not the world, have been looking forward to for years now. WATCH | Key Oppn leaders have decided to skip Jan 22 consecration, but what are they doing on the day? 1528: Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur. 1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files a plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. The court rejects the plea. 1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure. 1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla. 1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site. ALSO READ | Mauritius grants special break to officials for Ram Mandir inauguration celebrations 1961: A petitioner filed a suit pleading for the restoration of the property to Muslims. 1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site. February 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers. August 14, 1989: Allahabad High Court ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure. December 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished. April 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area. 1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad High Court challenging various aspects of the Act. October 24, 1994: Supreme Court says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam. April 2002: High Court begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site. March 13, 2003: Supreme Court says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature is allowed at the acquired land. ALSO READ | Ram Temple inauguration: Here is the seven-day schedule of vedic rituals starting Tuesday March 14, 2003: Supreme Court says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad High Court to maintain communal harmony. September 30, 2010: High Court, in a 2:1 majority, rules division of the disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. May 9, 2011: Supreme Court stays High Court verdict on Ayodhya land dispute. February 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in Supreme Court seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site March 21, 2017: Chief Justice of India JS Khehar suggests an out-of-court settlement among rival parties. August 7, 2017: The Supreme Court constitutes a three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad High Court. August 8, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site. September 11, 2017: Supreme Court directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site. November 20, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow. December 1, 2017: 32 civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court. ALSO READ | Ram Mandir: National award-winning artisan crafts diamond-studded replica of temple in ‘108 days’ February 8, 2018: Supreme Court starts hearing the civil appeals. March 14, 2018: Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case. April 6, 2018: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in Supreme Court to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench. July 6, 2018: UP government tells the Supreme Court some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of observation in the 1994 verdict. July 20, 2018: Supreme Court reserves verdict. September 27, 2018: Supreme Court declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. ALSO READ | Ram Mandir: Who are the shankaracharyas? How are they related to Adi Shankara? Here’s all you need to know January 2019: SC set up a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to hear the case. April 2019: Nirmohi Akhara opposes Centre’s plea to return acquired land around Ayodhya site to owners. November 9, 2019: Supreme Court delivers landmark verdict, ending the almost 70-year dispute, and ordering that the disputed 2.77 acres of land be transferred to a trust, to be set up by the Indian government, for the construction of Ram Temple. The apex court also ordered allocating five acres to Muslims in Ayodhya for building a mosque. ALSO READ | Ram Mandir inauguration ‘Modi’s function’: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi takes a dig at Indian PM August 5, 2020: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the construction of the Ram Mandir January 22, 2024: Pran Pratishtha (consecration ceremony) of Ram Lalla's idol is underway with more than 7,000 people from different walks of life invited to witness the historic moment. Several Indian states have declared a holiday or a 'half-day,' to mark the occasion. Meanwhile, the Union government has closed central government offices, central institutions and others for half a day for celebrations. (With inputs from agencies)

Ram Mandir consecration: A timeline of Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Lord Ram

The apex court on Thursday commenced the hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 10th consecutive day, with one of the litigants seeking enforcement of his right to worship at the disputed site.

The five-judge member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing the matter.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer and former Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar was arguing for Gopal Singh Bisharad in the case.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the three parties- Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp;

The apex court on Thursday commenced the hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 10th consecutive day, with one of the litigants seeking enforcement of his right to worship at the disputed site.

The apex court on Thursday commenced the hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 10th consecutive day, with one of the litigants seeking enforcement of his right to worship at the disputed site. The five-judge member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing the matter. Senior Supreme Court lawyer and former Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar was arguing for Gopal Singh Bisharad in the case. Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the three parties- Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Supreme Court hears Ayodhya Case for 10th consecutive day

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the issue of referring <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-a-timeline-188184">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid</a> title <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/25-years-since-babri-masjid-demolition-security-hiked-in-ayodhya-7188?first_load=no">dispute case</a> to court-appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”.The court asked the parties concerned to suggest the name of a mediator or panel of mediators.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, "We intend to pass the order soon."The bench had on February 26 had suggested an amicable resolution in the case through mediation and reserved its order for March 6.

The bench, which also comprised Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, had told the parties, “We`re seriously giving a chance for mediation."&nbsp;

During today's hearing, Justice Bobde said, “It’s about sentiments, about religion and about faith. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute.

"There need not be one mediator but a panel of mediators. When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," he said.

Justice Bobde said, "We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute."

On February 26, the bench had said, “We have suggested to the parties that during the interregnum a court-appointed and court-monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases.”

“Even if there is only one per cent chance, it should be explored," Justice Bobde had said emphasising for mediation in the matter.&nbsp;

While Muslim side and Nirmohi Akhada from the Hindu side in the case agreed for mediation, the counsel appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and Mahant Suresh Das were opposed to it saying court-appointed mediation had failed on earlier occasions.

The bench had recorded that apart from Nirmohi Akhada, Hindu sides in the case were not agreeable to mediation and that it could invoke its power under Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code for alternate dispute mechanism.

"We are considering a possibility of healing relationship," the bench had observed. There are fourteen appeals before the top court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment trifurcating the disputed site at Ayodhya for Ram Lalla, Nimrohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant. Several other appeals have also been filed in the court relating to the issue.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the issue of referring Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case to court-appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the issue of referring Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case to court-appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”.The court asked the parties concerned to suggest the name of a mediator or panel of mediators. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, "We intend to pass the order soon."The bench had on February 26 had suggested an amicable resolution in the case through mediation and reserved its order for March 6. The bench, which also comprised Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, had told the parties, “We`re seriously giving a chance for mediation." During today's hearing, Justice Bobde said, “It’s about sentiments, about religion and about faith. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute. "There need not be one mediator but a panel of mediators. When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," he said. Justice Bobde said, "We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute." On February 26, the bench had said, “We have suggested to the parties that during the interregnum a court-appointed and court-monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases.” “Even if there is only one per cent chance, it should be explored," Justice Bobde had said emphasising for mediation in the matter. While Muslim side and Nirmohi Akhada from the Hindu side in the case agreed for mediation, the counsel appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and Mahant Suresh Das were opposed to it saying court-appointed mediation had failed on earlier occasions. The bench had recorded that apart from Nirmohi Akhada, Hindu sides in the case were not agreeable to mediation and that it could invoke its power under Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code for alternate dispute mechanism. "We are considering a possibility of healing relationship," the bench had observed. There are fourteen appeals before the top court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment trifurcating the disputed site at Ayodhya for Ram Lalla, Nimrohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant. Several other appeals have also been filed in the court relating to the issue.

Ayodhya land dispute case: Supreme Court reserves order on court-monitored mediation to resolve issue

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it saw "some positive movement" in the Ayodhya land case after the Supreme Court verdict Thursday in a related matter.

It said the verdict indicated that the hearing in the case will not be done on the basis of faith.

Yesterday, the top court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of its 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam.

Senior AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani said, "We honour the court order and see some positive movement regarding the Ayodhya case."

Another AIMPLB member Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali said, "We respect the court verdict."

Mr Mahali said the AIMPLB had wanted the Supreme Court's 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam be put before a constitution bench "so that the matter is resolved permanently."

"Two positive things have come from this verdict," he added. "First, the Ayodhya matter will not be heard on the basis of faith and will be heard as a title suit," he told PTI.

Second, he said, the 1994 observation by court "will not make an impact" on the case.

"We hope that the final hearing of Ayodhya will be completed soon. The Ayodhya hearing should not be linked with the elections," he said, referring to next year's Lok Sabha polls.

The issue whether the mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing a batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict.

In that judgment, the high court had ordered that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area should be divided among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it saw "some positive movement" in the Ayodhya land case after the Supreme Court verdict Thursday in a related matter.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it saw "some positive movement" in the Ayodhya land case after the Supreme Court verdict Thursday in a related matter. It said the verdict indicated that the hearing in the case will not be done on the basis of faith. Yesterday, the top court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of its 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam. Senior AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani said, "We honour the court order and see some positive movement regarding the Ayodhya case." Another AIMPLB member Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali said, "We respect the court verdict." Mr Mahali said the AIMPLB had wanted the Supreme Court's 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam be put before a constitution bench "so that the matter is resolved permanently." "Two positive things have come from this verdict," he added. "First, the Ayodhya matter will not be heard on the basis of faith and will be heard as a title suit," he told PTI. Second, he said, the 1994 observation by court "will not make an impact" on the case. "We hope that the final hearing of Ayodhya will be completed soon. The Ayodhya hearing should not be linked with the elections," he said, referring to next year's Lok Sabha polls. The issue whether the mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing a batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict. In that judgment, the high court had ordered that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area should be divided among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

In Ayodhya case, Muslim Board says it sees 'some positive movement'