New Delhi: Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has
moved the Supreme Court challenging the part of Allahabad High
Court`s September 30 ruling on Ayodhya title suit which has
given one third of the disputed land to Muslims.
The Hindu Mahasabha`a national President Swami Chakra
Pani has moved the apex court close on the heels of religious
and social Islamic bodies Sunni Wakf Board and Jamiat
Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) moving it challenging the verdict
which ruled for a three-way divsion of the disputed land
around and underneath the demolished Babri mosque with two
parts to Hindus and one to Muslims.
While seeking partial annullment of the majority
verdict by the high court`s Lucknow bench, which ruled for
handing over one third of the disputed land to Muslims, the
Hindu Sabha sought the apex court`s endorsement of the
September 30 minority verdict by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
who ruled for handing over of the entire land to Hindus.
"Set aside the judgment dated September 30, 2010 by
Justice S.U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal to the extent that
one third of the property in dispute has been declared in
favour of Muslims and to allot share to them in the decree,"
said the Hindu Mahasabha petition.
It appealed to the apex court "to maintain the judgment
passed by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma" as the effective
A three-judge bench of the high court`s Lucknow bench
had passed three separate judgements on September 30 with the
majority verdict holding that the area covered by the central
dome of the three-domed structure, where the idol of Lord Rama
is situated, belongs to Hindus.
While justice Khan and Agarwal were of the view that the
entire disputed land should be divided into three parts for
handing over of one part each to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi
Akhara and the parties representing `Ram Lalla Virajman`
(seated Baby Ram), Justice Sharma had held that the entire
disputed area belongs to Hindus.
In its petition, the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the
provision for handing over one third of the disputed land to
Muslims saying the high court had erred in dividing the land
among the three parties as it had only been asked to decide
"as to who was the owner of the land and the property in