In the petition filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, it claimed that the Muslim parties had never made a prayer for alternate site and hence the Supreme Court could not have gone beyond the prayers and awarded alternate land to Muslims.
The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha on Monday filed a review petition against the November 9 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case challenging the allotment of 5 acres of alternate site to the Muslims.
In the petition filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, it claimed that the Muslim parties had never made a prayer for alternate site and hence the Supreme Court could not have gone beyond the prayers and awarded alternate land to Muslims.
“Those who have trampled the religious place of Hindus cannot be given prize for such illegal action and they cannot be allotted 5 acres of land to console them on the ground that Hindus have committed some wrong in 1934, 1949 and in 1992,” the petition stated.
The petitioner said the Supreme Court could not have exercised its powers under Article 142 to grant a relief which was not sought. Article 142 enables the Supreme Court to pass any order to ensure that complete justice is done.
Muslim parties including Jamiat-Ulama-i Hind and individual petitioners supported by All India Muslim Personal Law Board have already filed review petitions against the judgment.
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had, on November 9 awarded title to the 2.77 acre disputed land to Ram Lalla Virajman, the child deity and granted 5 acres of land to Muslims at an alternative site for construction of a new mosque.
The court had also asked the central government to set up a trust to oversee construction of the temple and manage the disputed site.
The petitioner challenged the finding of the court that a valid mosque existed at the disputed site. The worship of Ram Lalla at the disputed site has been happening since ages and the place belongs to the deity, the petition stated.
The title and possession of the disputed site was always with the deity and no valid waqf was ever created at the spot, the organisation said in its plea.
It, therefore, prayed that references in the judgment to “mosque” should be changed to “disputed structure”.
The petitioner has, interestingly, also sought deletion of certain observations against the Hindus for their acts committed in 1949 and 1992. The Supreme Court judgment had expressly stated that the acts of placing idols inside the mosque in 1949 and destruction of the mosque in 1992 were illegal.
However, Hindu Mahasabha claimed that Hindus were never called upon to clarify their position with regard to the acts of 1949 and 1992. Hence, they have claimed that the observations in the judgment against Hindus should be deleted.
Prasanta Patnaik