Refuses to accept 5-acre land for mosque, Sunni Waqf Board against move
The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) in a unanimous decision on Sunday decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court’s November 9 verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.
“We are not indulging in politics by deciding to file the review petition against the SC judgment. It’s our constitutional right under Article 25 of the Constitution,” AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani asserted while addressing a Press conference here on Sunday.
“The Board has also categorically refused to take five-acre land in Ayodhya in lieu of the mosque it is against Shariat law. The Board is of the view that there cannot be any alternative to the mosque,” he said.
Out of the total 51 members of the AIMPLB executive committee, 35-40 members attended the meeting and out of the five original plaintiffs in the case, three have given their written consent for filing the review petition, Jilani said.
He said the review petition would be filed in the SC within the 30 days’ limit after the judgment. Jilani admitted that the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board was also invited to the meeting but its representatives did not turn up.
The Sunni Waqf Board on November 9 had announced that it would neither file a review nor curative petition against the apex court judgment. The Sunni Waqf Board is scheduled to meet here on November 26 to decide whether to accept the five acre given for the mosque.
Jilani alleged that Iqbal Ansari, another original plaintiff in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, was being pressurised by the Ayodhya district administration not to give his consent for the review petition.
“There were two issues before the AIMPLB executive, one, whether to file review petition and, two, whether to accept the five acre for the mosque ordered by the SC. The executive unanimously decided to file a review petition,” said Jilani, adding that the executive, after analysing the judgment.
“We had not approached the SC for alternative land for the Babri Masjid but to fight for our ownership of the title of the disputed 2.77 acre at Ayodhya,” said Jilani. The executive felt that there are several contradictions in the court order and there are several points which are beyond comprehension and prima facie appear to be inappropriate, he said.
The AIMPLB has drawn ten major conclusions from the SC judgment and listed three points on which it concluded the verdict to be adverse. First, the SC accepted that the placing of the idols of Lord Ram on December 22/23 1949 was unconstitutional hence how the idols were recognised as deity by the apex court when it is not acceptable as per the Hindu law. Second, the court accepted that the Babri mosque was under the possession of Muslims from 1857 to 1949 then how could the disputed land be given to the Hindu side representing the Ram Lala Virajmaan.
Moreover, the AIMPLB said, “While exercising extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and awarding the 2.77 acre to the temple side, the apex court did not consider Section 104 A of the Waqf Act, 1995 which restricts the exchange or transfer of the mosque land”.
“How could the apex court rule against the statute and order alternative land against the land where the Babri masjid stood. The Supreme Court itself has ruled earlier that the powers of the court under Article 142 are not unlimited,” argued Jilani.
He clarified that by refusing to accept the 5-acre land for the mosque, the AIMPLB would not be guilty of contempt of court as the Supreme Court had issued this direction for the Central government and not for any Muslim organisation.
Jilani criticised the district magistrate of Lucknow for forcing the AIMPLB to change the venue of the meeting of its executive committee.
“I condemn the district administration of Lucknow for not allowing the meeting of the AIMPLB executive on the premises of Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama. The district magistrate on Saturday night met AIMPLB chairman Maulana Rabey Hasani Nadwi and told him that the meeting of the AIMPLB could not be held at Nadwa so we were forced to shift the venue to Mumtaz Degree College,” Jilani said and added, “We have been holding the meeting of the AIMPLB executive at Nadwa for years and as the meetings are held inside a hall, there has never been need for obtaining permission from the district administration.”
