Moulding of Relief: Concluding prayers of parties involved in Ayodhya dispute

It was a pure and simple land dispute and the court would hear arguments only on law points and on documents to decide the title suit, had said the then Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra. "We do not ask for propositions which lead to assumptions, leading to presumptions, leading to untruth, leading to folly, leading to danger, leading to guilt, which can kill a man,” the CJI had also observed.

But the parties to the civil dispute, all of them claiming right and ownership over the land where Babri Masjid stood and which was demolished in December, 1992, submitted in writing their prayers on October 19 to the court.

Their prayers are summed up as follows:

RAM LALLA VIRAJMAN

1) The written submission made on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman says the court should give the entire disputed land to Ram Lalla.

2) The submission said no part of the disputed land should be given to the Nirmohi Akhara or the Muslim parties.

RAM JANMABHOOMI PUNARUDDHAR SAMITI

1) Only a Ram temple should be allowed to be constructed at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

2) Once the temple is constructed, a trust should be formed to look after its management.

HINDU MAHASABHA

1) The Supreme Court should form a trust that will oversee the management of the Ram temple that will be built at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

2) The Supreme Court should appoint an administrator that will look after this trust.

SUNNI WAQF BOARD

1) The Board said it wants the same relief that it argued during court hearings. During the hearings, the Board's counsel Rajeev Dhawan had demanded that the Babri Masjid should be restored to its form before it was destroyed on December 6, 1992.

SHIA WAQF BOARD

1) In our moulding relief to before the Allahabad High Court, we had said the Muslim parties

should relinquish their claim over the disputed land and hand it over to the Hindu parties to construct a Ram temple.

2) In its written submission, the Shia Waqf Board said a Ram temple should be constructed at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

NIRMOHI AKHARA

1) In case the verdict comes in favour of any of the Hindu parties, the Akhara should retain the right to serve the deity.

2) Permission to construct a Ram temple at the disputed site and Nirmohi Akhara should be given the rights to manage the premises once the temple has been built.

3) In case the court decides to uphold the 2010 Allahabad High Court's verdict and the Muslim parties say they won't make any construction at the disputed site, the court should instruct the Muslim parties to give their share of the land to the Hindu parties on a long-term lease so that a grand Ram temple can be built. (The Allahabad High Court verdict had divided the disputed land into three parts-the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla)

4) The court should order the government to provide land to the Muslim side to construct a mosque outside the dispute area.

GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD

1) Gopal Singh Visharad, whose ancestors had reportedly carried out rituals at the temple site argued that it is his constitutional right to offer prayers at Ram Janmabhoomi.

2) His submission said there should be no compromise in the Ram Janmabhoomi case.

3) It said the Shia Waqf Board is rightful owner of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board.

4) The land that was given to the Sunni Waqf Board in the high court order should be now given to the Hindu parties.