Ayodhya: Plea filed in Supreme Court on land dispute

New Delhi: After the Centre filed an application seeking permission for return of the excess land acquired in Ayodhya, in and around the make shift temple of Lord Ram, a petition has been filed on Monday questioning the Constitutional validity of ‘The Acquisition of Certain area at Ayodhya Act, 1993’ on the ground that Parliament has no legislative competence to take over/acquire the property.

In a writ petition advocate Shishir Chaturvedi and seven others contended that the Centre had acquired about 67 acres of land in 1993 though such a vast extent of land was totally unconnected with the property in dispute, which is only 0.313 acres of land.

This plea is likely to be heard by a five Judge Constitution Bench hearing the appeals relating to the title dispute on the 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi land.

It is not disputed that the property in question situated at Ayodhya has not been declared as ancient and Historical monument by any law made by Parliament.

This property in dispute at Ayodhya is important for Pilgrimage. It is a historical monument as well. The Uttar Pradesh State Legislature has exclusive power to enact law on those subjects and Parliament cannot encroach upon the State power to enact law.

The Hindus have right to perform Puja, Arti, Bhog and other rituals at the places of worship in the temple, Ashram, Dharmshalas situated near the disputed structure. The Union or the States have no power to stop puja and other religious activities at such places. Therefore the impugned Act is ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution in so far it restricts the rights of Hindus to perform Darshan and Puja in the temple and Dharmshalas and other place of worship situated in and around the disputed structure.

They pointed out that no public purpose would be served by acquiring such a large area at the cost of religious sentiments of Hindus. There is no reasonable basis to uphold the acquisition of such unconnected large area with the disputed site. The impugned Act is unreasonable and has been enacted at the cost of Hindu sentiments infringing their right to religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution and as such the same is liable to be struck down and the property returned to the erstwhile owners, the petitioner said and sought a direction in this regard.