Saturday, November 9, 2019

Owaisi's statement on Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya: 5 acres of land not needed in bailout

By
The Supreme Court in a unanimous verdict on Saturday paved the way for the construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and directed the Center to allot a five-acre plot of land at the prime location to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of the new mosque. A five-member constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, along with this system, blocked the controversy which is more than 134 years politically sensitive. After this decision of the Supreme Court, Asaduddin Owaisi has given his response. Asaduddin Owaisi expressed dissatisfaction with the decision of the Supreme Court and said that I am not satisfied with this decision. At the same time, Owaisi refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision to give 5 acres of land to the Muslim side, saying that we cannot take bailout land. However, he also said that this is his personal view, but the Sunni Bakf Board has to decide whether he accepts this land proposal.
Owaisi's statement on Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya: 5 acres of land not needed in bailout


  • Was there a Ram temple in Ayodhya?



  • How old is Ayodhya dispute?



  • What is result of Ayodhya case?



  • How much Acres is Babri Masjid?


Owaisi questioned the decision saying that those who demolished the Babri Masjid, today the Supreme Court is telling them to build temples by building trusts. Had the mosque lived there and not been a martyr, would that have been the decision. I do not know. The Supreme Court verdict is supreme, but the Inflabel is not. Just like Owaisi, the UP Sunni Waqf Board has expressed dissatisfaction over this decision, saying that it will consider the decision whether to challenge in court or not. This dispute had broken the fabric of the country's social and communal harmony.

He said that we are fighting for our legal rights. The Muslims of Hindustan have not fallen so much that they will beg 5 acres of land. If we go to demand like this, then we will get more land than this. We do not need a bailout of 5 acres. We do not need to beg anyone. What the Muslim Board will decide is their issue. My personal opinion is that we should reject the five-acre proposal. We should fight a legal battle.

Owaisi said that I am not satisfied with this decision of the Supreme Court. As a citizen of India, I have a right to express dissatisfaction with the court's decision. Do we not have the freedom to speak in this country? The country is on its way to the Hindu nation. The Sangh will start it from Ayodhya. She will also use NRC. Owaisi further said that I can deal with my private house, but I cannot deal with the mosque land.

What is the verdict on Ayodhya:

The Constitution Bench, in its 1045-page judgment, said that the new mosque should be constructed at the 'main site'. Also, a trust should be formed within three months for the construction of the temple at that place, towards which Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born here. The place had a 16th century Babri Masjid which was demolished by Kar Sevaks on 6 December 1992. Communal riots broke out in the country after the disputed site was demolished. The bench said that the right to disputed 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to Ram Lala Virajman, who is an litigant in the case. However, this land will remain in the possession of the receiver of the Central Government.

The court said that the Hindus had been successful in proving that they had possession of the outer porch of the disputed structure and that the UP Sunni Waqf Board had failed to prove their case in the Adhyayadhi dispute. The Constitution Bench held that there was widespread worship by the Hindus in the outer verandah of the disputed site, and evidence suggests that the Muslim prayers at the mosque were read on Friday, indicating that they occupied the site Was not left The apex court said that despite obstruction in offering prayers in the mosque, the evidence is indicative that there was no stop in offering namaz there.

The constitution bench said that the structure found under the disputed site in Ayodhya was not Islamic but the Archaeological Survey of India did not prove whether the temple was demolished for the construction of the mosque. The court said that merely revealing the evidence of the Archaeological Survey would be an injustice to this institution. The court said that Hindus consider the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and Muslims also say the same about this place. The bench said that the belief of Hindus about the birth of Lord Ram in the disputed structure is undisputed. Not only this, the presence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutara and Bhandar Griha is a testimony to the religious fact of this place.

0 comments:

Post a Comment