New Delhi: The first review petition filed by the Muslim side in the Supreme Court has stated that giving the disputed land in Ayodhya to Hindus tantamount to rewarding them for destruction of the Babri Masjid.
The review petition, filed by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, legal heir of original Ayodhya land dispute litigant M Siddiq, has claimed that the November 9 verdict by the top court suffers from grave errors, requiring its reconsideration.
“This Hon’ble Court erred in granting a relief which virtually amounts to a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid. This Hon’ble Court erred in rewarding the crimes committed in 1934, 1949 and 1992, by giving title to the Hindu parties, when it had already ruled that the said acts were illegal," stated the 217-page petition filed through advocate Ejaz Maqbool.
It questioned as to how the five-judge bench could rule in favour of Hindus after recording their illegal acts of destroying the domes in 1934 leading up to destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992.
"This court erred in disregarding the basic principle that no person can derive benefit out of an illegality while granting title to the Hindu parties... a tainted cause of action cannot be sustained or decreed in a civil suit," maintained the plea.
The petition claimed that the Muslims were always in exclusive possession of the disputed land but the bench opted to give priority to oral testimonies by Hindus over documentary evidence laid down by them. It added that reliance by the court on archaeological evidence and travelogues was also misplaced.
The court, the petition stated, had also erred in equating wanton acts of destruction and trespass committed by the Hindu parties to acts of assertion of claim over the disputed site.
Although Sunni Waqf Board has said it will not seek a review of the court judgment, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and All India Muslim Personal Law Board have maintained they are dissatisfied with the Supreme Court judgment. Both these organisations are represented in the court through individual plaintiffs.
Comments
0 comment