Muslim parties ready to drop claim to Ayodhya land: Mediation panel

[Spartan]

The court-appointed mediation panel on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court about achieving a groundbreaking settlement to the vexed dispute over the 2.77-acre Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya under which the Muslim parties have agreed to give up their claim on the land for the construction of the Ram temple.

Parties who signed the settlement were the Sunni waqf board, the Nirvani Akhara, a representative of Nirmohi Ani (parent body of all eight Nirmohi Akharas), the Hindu Mahasabha and the Ram Janmasthan Punarudhar Samiti, sources told TOI.

The settlement, while seeking to facilitate a Ram temple, also seeks strict implementation of the 1991 law that lays down status quo for all places of worship that existed on August 15, 1947, repair of all other mosques in Ayodhya and, importantly, construction of a mosque at an alternative site by the waqf board.

 

 

However, two main stakeholders - VHP-backed Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and Ram Lalla deity through next friend (suit filed by the deity includes Nyas as one of the plaintiffs), and a faction of Jamiat Ulema - did not participate in the negotiations.

The sources said since the Muslim parties have agreed to give up their claim on the disputed land and agreed to allow the construction of Ram temple, the Nyas would find it difficult not to accept this settlement as this is the best they could get from the Supreme Court if it decides to rule in their favour.
Just two days back, the SC had ordered the UP government to provide adequate security to Sunni waqf board chairman Zufar Ahmed Farooqi on being informed by one of the SC-appointed mediators, Sriram Panchu, that Farooqi has received a threat to his life. The points of settlement are:

• Implementation in letter and spirit of Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, which prohibits conversion of any place of worship and to provide for maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This act does not apply to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

• Muslims to give up claim on the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya. The government to take up repair and restoration work of all mosques situated in Ayodhya. UP Sunni waqf board to construct a mosque at an alternative site.

• Select a few mosques under the Archaeological Survey of India management to be opened up for worship to Muslims after a court-appointed committee hears the parties and chooses the mosques to be opened for worship purposes.

Some of those who participated in the negotiation process, which was restarted on September 18 by the SC-appointed panel of Justice FMI Kalifulla, ace mediator and senior advocate Panchu and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar, told TOI that even the Jamiat faction would find it difficult to oppose the settlement.
Their argument was that even if the SC decides in favour of the Muslim parties, it will be the Sunni waqf board which would be entitled to the disputed land. Under Section 51 of the Waqf Act, the waqf board being the sole statutory body can consent to acquisition of the land under its control. "So, the waqf board, even if the Muslim parties emerge victorious, would be able to give up claim on the disputed land," they said.

[DaleSteyn1]

Thu ninna monna kidar gaya re

[Spartan]

2 minutes ago, DaleSteyn1 said:

Thu ninna monna kidar gaya re

India.

[DaleSteyn1]

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

India.

Intlo kusunnava roju varsham danching kadha

[Spartan]

2 minutes ago, DaleSteyn1 said:

Intlo kusunnava roju varsham danching kadha

Yeah kindof..

[Sachin200]

17 minutes ago, Spartan said:

The court-appointed mediation panel on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court about achieving a groundbreaking settlement to the vexed dispute over the 2.77-acre Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya under which the Muslim parties have agreed to give up their claim on the land for the construction of the Ram temple.

Parties who signed the settlement were the Sunni waqf board, the Nirvani Akhara, a representative of Nirmohi Ani (parent body of all eight Nirmohi Akharas), the Hindu Mahasabha and the Ram Janmasthan Punarudhar Samiti, sources told TOI.

The settlement, while seeking to facilitate a Ram temple, also seeks strict implementation of the 1991 law that lays down status quo for all places of worship that existed on August 15, 1947, repair of all other mosques in Ayodhya and, importantly, construction of a mosque at an alternative site by the waqf board.

 

 

However, two main stakeholders - VHP-backed Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and Ram Lalla deity through next friend (suit filed by the deity includes Nyas as one of the plaintiffs), and a faction of Jamiat Ulema - did not participate in the negotiations.

The sources said since the Muslim parties have agreed to give up their claim on the disputed land and agreed to allow the construction of Ram temple, the Nyas would find it difficult not to accept this settlement as this is the best they could get from the Supreme Court if it decides to rule in their favour.
Just two days back, the SC had ordered the UP government to provide adequate security to Sunni waqf board chairman Zufar Ahmed Farooqi on being informed by one of the SC-appointed mediators, Sriram Panchu, that Farooqi has received a threat to his life. The points of settlement are:

• Implementation in letter and spirit of Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, which prohibits conversion of any place of worship and to provide for maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This act does not apply to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

• Muslims to give up claim on the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya. The government to take up repair and restoration work of all mosques situated in Ayodhya. UP Sunni waqf board to construct a mosque at an alternative site.

• Select a few mosques under the Archaeological Survey of India management to be opened up for worship to Muslims after a court-appointed committee hears the parties and chooses the mosques to be opened for worship purposes.

Some of those who participated in the negotiation process, which was restarted on September 18 by the SC-appointed panel of Justice FMI Kalifulla, ace mediator and senior advocate Panchu and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar, told TOI that even the Jamiat faction would find it difficult to oppose the settlement.
Their argument was that even if the SC decides in favour of the Muslim parties, it will be the Sunni waqf board which would be entitled to the disputed land. Under Section 51 of the Waqf Act, the waqf board being the sole statutory body can consent to acquisition of the land under its control. "So, the waqf board, even if the Muslim parties emerge victorious, would be able to give up claim on the disputed land," they said.

Miglina 60 plus acres Ami chestaru , 0.3 acres lo masid unde and 2.77 disputed pettaru . SC motham 67 acres control Loki teeskundhi 

[Spartan]

1 minute ago, Sachin200 said:

Miglina 60 plus acres Ami chestaru , 0.3 acres lo masid unde and 2.77 disputed pettaru . SC motham 67 acres control Loki teeskundhi 

case vesindi 2.77 ke kada..

migitadanta Nirmohi valladi anukunta ichestaremo..temple ke.

[Sachin200]

3 minutes ago, Spartan said:

case vesindi 2.77 ke kada..

migitadanta Nirmohi valladi anukunta ichestaremo..temple ke.

 

The Centre Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking its permission to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed Ram Janambhoomi Babri Masjid site to original owners.

 

In a fresh plea, the Centre said it had acquired 67 acres of land around the 2.77 acre disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

[Sachin200]

Supreme Court 67 acres ni kooda dispute chesindhi . Just proximity area lo Inka Loki cheyakunda either parties 

[prasadr]

50 minutes ago, Sachin200 said:

Supreme Court 67 acres ni kooda dispute chesindhi . Just proximity area lo Inka Loki cheyakunda either parties 

 

That surrounding land is with Govt and not with any other body.

Neither is it part of the claims made by parties in SC.

 

Basically, when the judgement comes, Govt can decide to do what ever it wants with that land.

[prasadr]

the 1991 act is a blot to hide crimes of history on Hindus.

 

Point being, win or lose, Hindu parties will never accept point 1.

It means giving up their rights on the 40000 temples destroyed by Islamists.

 

And this is exactly what Muslim bodies want to avoid.

If it's a win for Hindus then this case sets a precedent for Hindus to claim their rights on all temples destroyed - basically the worst nightmare for muslims.

And they want to desperately avoid that.

Hence this offer for settlement. If this case is settled, then it means there is no judgement from SC and no precedent for future similar suits filed.

 

Unless point 1 is dropped, this settlement means nothing for Hindu groups.

[Android_Halwa]

Out of court settlement chesi vunte epudo dukan bandh aipotunde....

kali peeli court la caselu esi inni yendlu sagateesinaru

[BetaCat]

@lovemystate

[hunkyfunky]

13 minutes ago, prasadr said:

the 1991 act is a blot to hide crimes of history on Hindus.

 

Point being, win or lose, Hindu parties will never accept point 1.

It means giving up their rights on the 40000 temples destroyed by Islamists.

 

And this is exactly what Muslim bodies want to avoid.

If it's a win for Hindus then this case sets a precedent for Hindus to claim their rights on all temples destroyed - basically the worst nightmare for muslims.

And they want to desperately avoid that.

Hence this offer for settlement. If this case is settled, then it means there is no judgement from SC and no precedent for future similar suits filed.

 

Unless point 1 is dropped, this settlement means nothing for Hindu groups.

True. Also, they know they are going to lose... Actually there are enough indications on how the judgement is going. 

Look at the message from Sadhguru - he basically declared victory for Hindus and said they shouldn't celebrate and told Muslims that place is not of much importance to you so let it go. 

[hunkyfunky]

https://twitter.com/SadhguruJV/status/1184378285465063424?s=20