Lucknow, Nov 17 (UNI) The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court order on the title dispute over the 2.27 acres of land at Ayodhya. The apex court delivered the verdict on November 9.
The Board also rejected the offer of 5 acres of land for a mosque in Ayodhya.
"Of the total 51 members of the executive committee, 35-40 members attended the meeting. Out of the five original petitioners in the case, three have given their written consent for filing the review petition in the Supreme court’’, said Zafaryab Jilani secretary of the AIMPLB.
He added "the review petition will be filed in the supreme court within the thirty days limit of announcement of the judgment on November 9.’’
Jilani alleged that Iqbal Ansari, another original plaintiff is being pressurised by the district administration of Ayodhya against giving his consent for the review petition and issuing statement about the Supreme Court verdict.
``There were two issues before the executive of the AIMPLB - one review petition and whether to accept the five acre land for the mosque ordered by the Supreme Court. The executive unanimously decided to file review petition and rejected the offer of 5 acre of land as it was against the Shariat law which prohibits to handover or gift a mosque to any other party or take the land in exchange’’, said Jilani adding "a mosque will remain a mosque till eternity’’.
``The executive after analysing the judgement found that there were apparent errors in the judgment. We had approached the supreme court not for alternative land for the Babri masjid but to fight for our ownership of the disputed 2.27 acres of land at Ayodhya’’, said Jilani adding `` the executive felt that there are not only several contradictions in the court order, there are several points which are beyond comprehension and prima facie appears to be inappropriate’’.
The board in its meeting drew ten major points in the Supreme Court judgment and listed three points on which it concluded it as adverse judgment. First the Supreme Court accepted that the placing of the idols of Lord Ram on December 22/23 1949 was unconstitutional so how the idols were recognised as the deity by the apex court which is also not acceptable as per the Hindu law.
Second the court accepted that the Babri mosque was under the possession of the Muslims from 1857 to 1949 then how could the disputed land be given to the Hindu side representing the Ramlala Virajmaan.
Moreover the board said, "exercising the extraordinary powers under article 142 of the constitution and awarding the 2.27 acres land to the temple side, the apex court did not consider the Section 104 A of the Waqf Act 1995 which restricts the exchange or transfer of the mosque land’’.
``How could the apex court rule against the statue and order for alternative land against the land where the babri masjid stood. The Supreme Court itself had ruled earlier that the powers of the court under article 142 are not unlimited,’’argued Jilani.
UNI MB SHK1905