Nirmohi Akhara, one of the litigants in Ayodhya case, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision of giving it an "adequate representation in the trust" to be set up by the Central government for making necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple.

"Nirmohi Akhara is grateful that Supreme Court has recognised our fight of last 150 years and has given the Nirmohi Akhara adequate representation in the trust to be set up by the Central Government to build and manage the Shri Ram Janmasthan Temple," said Kartik Chopra, spokesperson, Nirmohi Akhara.

The Supreme Court on Saturday directed the Centre to give five acres of suitable land to Sunni Waqf Board and at the same time make necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple by forming a trust.

"Central government shall form in three to four months a scheme for setting up of a trust. They shall make necessary arrangements for the management of trust and construction of the temple," Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said while reading out the verdict.

A five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer passed the order on a bunch of petitions against an order of the Allahabad High Court which trifurcated the site between the parties -- Ramlalla Virajman, Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara.

A decade-long legal dispute was fought by right-wing party Hindu Mahasabha, a sect of Hindu monks Nirmohi Akhara and Muslim Waqf Board over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya.

 
&nbsp;

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the litigants in Ayodhya case, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision of giving it an "adequate representation in the trust" to be set up by the Central government for making necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple.

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the litigants in Ayodhya case, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision of giving it an "adequate representation in the trust" to be set up by the Central government for making necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple. "Nirmohi Akhara is grateful that Supreme Court has recognised our fight of last 150 years and has given the Nirmohi Akhara adequate representation in the trust to be set up by the Central Government to build and manage the Shri Ram Janmasthan Temple," said Kartik Chopra, spokesperson, Nirmohi Akhara. The Supreme Court on Saturday directed the Centre to give five acres of suitable land to Sunni Waqf Board and at the same time make necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple by forming a trust. "Central government shall form in three to four months a scheme for setting up of a trust. They shall make necessary arrangements for the management of trust and construction of the temple," Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said while reading out the verdict. A five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer passed the order on a bunch of petitions against an order of the Allahabad High Court which trifurcated the site between the parties -- Ramlalla Virajman, Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. A decade-long legal dispute was fought by right-wing party Hindu Mahasabha, a sect of Hindu monks Nirmohi Akhara and Muslim Waqf Board over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya.

Ayodhya verdict: We welcome SC order of giving us 'adequate representation' in trust for construction of Ram temple, says Nirmohi Akhara

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits.

"Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended.

"There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added.

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things.

Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.

Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara.

He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case.

Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6.

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 Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982. Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits. "Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended. "There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things. Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then. Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara. He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961. A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case. Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6. 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 Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Ayodhya land dispute: Supreme Court seeks evidence of possession of Ram Janmabhoomi from Nirmohi Akhara

Nirmohi Akhara has filed an application in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/its-a-serious-responsibility-will-do-my-best-sriram-panchu-on-ayodhya-mediation-202016"> Supreme Court opposing Centre’s </a>request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners.&nbsp;

The Akhara said the acquisition of land by the government had led to the destruction of many temples managed by the Akhara, therefore it wants the court to decide the title dispute.

Last month, the Akhara which is one of the original litigants in the&nbsp;Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, had requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place”.

The Supreme Court had appointed three members comprising of ex-Supreme Court judge FM Khaliifulah, spiritual guru Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu to mediate to help resolve the contentious Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute issue

The Akahara had earlier requested to the Supreme Court that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.

The Akhara had also requested two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel.&nbsp;

In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Nirmohi Akhara has filed an application in the Supreme Court opposing Centre’s request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners. The Akhara said the acquisition of land by the government had led to the destruction of many temples managed by the Akhara, therefore it wants the court to decide the title dispute.

Nirmohi Akhara has filed an application in the Supreme Court opposing Centre’s request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners. The Akhara said the acquisition of land by the government had led to the destruction of many temples managed by the Akhara, therefore it wants the court to decide the title dispute. Last month, the Akhara which is one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, had requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place”. The Supreme Court had appointed three members comprising of ex-Supreme Court judge FM Khaliifulah, spiritual guru Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu to mediate to help resolve the contentious Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute issue The Akahara had earlier requested to the Supreme Court that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. The Akhara had also requested two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel. In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Nirmohi Akhara moves Supreme Court against Centre’s request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, has requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place” due to the sensitive nature of the issue.

It has also said that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.

Besides, it has further requested that two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel which is exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement of the land dispute.&nbsp;

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on March 8 referred the land dispute case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F M I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement.

The bench had said that spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, will be the other two members of the panel of mediators and the proceedings will be held at Faizabad.

In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, has requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place” due to the sensitive nature of the issue.

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, has requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place” due to the sensitive nature of the issue. It has also said that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. Besides, it has further requested that two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel which is exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement of the land dispute. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on March 8 referred the land dispute case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F M I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement. The bench had said that spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, will be the other two members of the panel of mediators and the proceedings will be held at Faizabad. In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Ayodhya case: Nirmohi Akhara requests SC to move mediation proceedings to ‘neutral place’

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it.

Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench.

Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench.

The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15.&nbsp

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a 'property dispute' and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it. Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench. Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench. The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya case purely a 'property dispute': Hindu bodies to Supreme Court

nirmohi-akhara

Nirmohi Akhara, News on Nirmohi Akhara, stories on Nirmohi Akhara, articles on Nirmohi Akhara, Nirmohi Akhara stories at Wion, Nirmohi Akhara news, Nirmohi Akhara latest news

nirmohi akhara

Ayodhya verdict: We welcome SC order of giving us 'adequate representation' in trust for construction of Ram temple, says Nirmohi Akhara

Ayodhya land dispute: Supreme Court seeks evidence of possession of Ram Janmabhoomi from Nirmohi Akhara

Nirmohi Akhara moves Supreme Court against Centre’s request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners

Ayodhya case: Nirmohi Akhara requests SC to move mediation proceedings to ‘neutral place’

Ayodhya case purely a 'property dispute': Hindu bodies to Supreme Court