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

Jabalpur high court to hear a petition by&nbsp;Dr Arif Mirza, a Lahore resident, who claimed that he was the legal heir of the property in Bhopal.

Mirza claims that his mother was the daughter of former Nawab Hamidullah, the great-grandfather of Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan and&nbsp;the last Nawab of Bhopal.&nbsp;

According to the impleadment application filed in the Court, Mirza seeks to be recognised as a legal heir of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, thereby allowing him to contest the claim on around 30 disputed properties worth crores of rupees.

However, the actor and his mother Sharmila Tagore have contested Mirza&#39;s claim in the court on the grounds that he was a Pakistani citizen and therefore not a legal heir, as per the Defence Rules and under the Enemy Property Rights Act. In their submissions, Khan alleged that his grandmother Nawab Sajida Begum is the &quot;sole successor&quot; to all properties &mdash; movable and immovable.

Responding to these claims, advocate Arjun Bobde submitted that even though his client Mirza lived in Pakistan, he was still an Indian citizen, DNA reported.&nbsp;

Mirza further clarified to DNA that though he was born in Nagpur, Maharashtra, he spent a significant amount of time in Bhopal. &quot;I shifted to Lahore with my mother many years ago, and though my passport lapsed, I did not relinquish my Indian citizenship,&quot; Mirza said.

&quot;I wanted to return home a long time ago,&quot; Mirza said, sitting in Bobde&#39;s office. However, Mirza&#39;s dream was realised when he was granted a white passport &mdash; an emergency one, after a two-year struggle. &quot;It has been a very long time since I&#39;ve seen my childhood home in Bhopal,&quot; Mirza said while reminiscing about his plans.

Mirza hopes to take his time settling in and focus on the age-old property dispute his late father Nasir Mirza was involved with. &quot;First, I want to focus on the legal issues that I have to face, then perhaps, I don&#39;t know, I may pursue my Masters here,&quot; DNA quoted Mirza as saying.&nbsp;

Interestingly, Mirza and Saif&#39;s claim over the ancestral property in Bhopal is in danger after the Lok Sabha passed a long-pending Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2016, amending the Enemy Property Act (it prevents the successors of those who migrated to Pakistan and China during Partition from claiming properties left behind in India).

A Lahore resident Dr Arif Mirza has claimed that he was the legal heir of the property and it belonged to him.

Jabalpur high court to hear a petition by Dr Arif Mirza, a Lahore resident, who claimed that he was the legal heir of the property in Bhopal. Mirza claims that his mother was the daughter of former Nawab Hamidullah, the great-grandfather of Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan and the last Nawab of Bhopal. According to the impleadment application filed in the Court, Mirza seeks to be recognised as a legal heir of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, thereby allowing him to contest the claim on around 30 disputed properties worth crores of rupees. However, the actor and his mother Sharmila Tagore have contested Mirza's claim in the court on the grounds that he was a Pakistani citizen and therefore not a legal heir, as per the Defence Rules and under the Enemy Property Rights Act. In their submissions, Khan alleged that his grandmother Nawab Sajida Begum is the "sole successor" to all properties — movable and immovable. Responding to these claims, advocate Arjun Bobde submitted that even though his client Mirza lived in Pakistan, he was still an Indian citizen, DNA reported. Mirza further clarified to DNA that though he was born in Nagpur, Maharashtra, he spent a significant amount of time in Bhopal. "I shifted to Lahore with my mother many years ago, and though my passport lapsed, I did not relinquish my Indian citizenship," Mirza said. "I wanted to return home a long time ago," Mirza said, sitting in Bobde's office. However, Mirza's dream was realised when he was granted a white passport — an emergency one, after a two-year struggle. "It has been a very long time since I've seen my childhood home in Bhopal," Mirza said while reminiscing about his plans. Mirza hopes to take his time settling in and focus on the age-old property dispute his late father Nasir Mirza was involved with. "First, I want to focus on the legal issues that I have to face, then perhaps, I don't know, I may pursue my Masters here," DNA quoted Mirza as saying. Interestingly, Mirza and Saif's claim over the ancestral property in Bhopal is in danger after the Lok Sabha passed a long-pending Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2016, amending the Enemy Property Act (it prevents the successors of those who migrated to Pakistan and China during Partition from claiming properties left behind in India).

Court to hear Pak man's claim to Saif Ali Khan's Bhopal property

property-dispute

Property Dispute, News on Property Dispute, stories on Property Dispute, articles on Property Dispute, Property Dispute stories at Wion, Property Dispute news, Property Dispute latest news