The Hindu and Muslim litigants in the Ayodhya case have opposed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's decision to file a review petition in the matter.
Ayodhya, Nov 17: The Hindu and Muslim litigants in the Ayodhya case have opposed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's decision to file a review petition in the matter.
Ram Lalla's 'next friend' Triloki Nath Pandey, who represented the deity in the court, said: "The Muslims must not go for a review petition... There is no gain for them in it (but) the atmosphere of harmony will definitely deteriorate. There are no two opinions about it."
Iqbal Ansari, who was one of the main litigants from the Muslim side in the Ayodhya title dispute case, also came out against the AIMPLB's move.
"It is not correct at all... See the verdict has come, no riot took place... I have separated myself from them. The dispute was going on for 70 years and now the Supreme Court has given its verdict, so I will go with the verdict," he said.
However, the Nirmohi Akhara did not mind the AIMPLB's decision to go in for a review petition.
Nirmohi Akhara's counsel Ranjeet Lal Varma said: "This is the legal right given by the court to them... We have no objection as it is a normal judicial process and they have scope to go for review so they are going."
Earlier on Sunday, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) decided that it would file a petition seeking review of the Supreme Court's judgement in the Ayodhya case and said it was against accepting the five-acre alternative land given for a mosque.
"The land of the mosque belongs to Allah and under the Sharia, it cannot be given to anybody," AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani told reporters after a meeting of the board here.
"The board has also categorically stated that it was against taking five-acre land in Ayodhya in lieu of the mosque. The board is of the view that there cannot be any alternative to the mosque," he added.
Earlier in the day, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind also decided to file a review petition challenging the Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict.
Jamiat chief Maulana Arshad Madani said they took the decision following extensive deliberations involving lawyers and experts.
The expert panel observed that the judgment was against the Muslim parties and it was not a final judgment as the option of reviewing it is available under the Constitution of India, the Jamiat said.
AIMPLB to seek review of Supreme Court verdict in Ayodhya case
The Supreme Court, in its verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title case on November 9, said the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, who was one of the three litigants.
The five-judge Constitution bench also directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya to build a mosque.
Jilani said, "On the night of December 23, 1949, the installation of statue of Lord Ram inside the Babri Majid was unconstitutional. So, how did the Supreme Court consider them as 'araadhya' (eligible for worshipping). They (idols) cannot be considered as 'araadhya' (eligible for worshipping) even as per Hindu religion."
The AIMPLB meeting was held at Mumtaz College instead of the scheduled venue of Nadwatul Ulema, a senior member of the board said.
He said that on Saturday night it was told that the Lucknow district administration did not give permission to hold the meeting in Nadwatul Ulema since prohibitory orders under Section 144 of CrPC were in place. Hence the meeting took place at Mumtaz College, he said.
The senior board member, however, could not clarify whether permission was sought from the district administration for holding the meeting at Mumtaz College.
Photo: Google Image