India News --- Ayodhya

Ayodhya verdict: Both sides to move SC
Nath Bhatt , Sanjay Singh 
Posted: Fri Oct 01 2010, 09:32 hrsUpdated: Fri Oct 01 2010, 09:40 hrsLucknow:
======================================================

Sunni Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani on Thursday termed the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suits as “disappointing” and said they would move the Supreme Court against the order.
“We have three months, we will certainly move the Supreme Court,” Jilani told reporters. He said the verdict was “against the settled principles of law and evidence adduced by the Muslim side”.
The court dismissed the Waqf Board’s claim by a 2-1 majority.

“We are of the firm view that no public resentment is required as the matter can be taken to the Supreme Court and there is no reason for any loss of hope in favour of the mosque,” Jilani said, adding the majority decision to give Muslims one-third land was not acceptable to the Waqf Board.

He said they would examine the text of the judgment in detail and discuss the matter with the All India Muslim Personal law Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee.

“We hope that peace and tranquility will be maintained throughout the country and the issue will not be taken to the streets by anyone”.

Asked about the scope of an amicable solution through reconciliation and mediation, he said the majority judgment directed that the mosque and temple can co-exist.

Jilani said they were not going to surrender the land. “Such matters can be solved through courts. We will accept the final verdict of the Supreme Court,” Jilani said.

Nyas to move SC, says ‘no question of victory or loss’

Although the telecast of the Ayodhya verdict was greeted with “Jai Shri Ram” and “Ram Lalla, we will come and construct the temple at the disputed site” by dozens of VHP cadres and supporters, who had started assembling at the Karsewakpuram, the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas asserted that “it was not a question of victory or defeat for any section of society” and that they would challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court.

“First we will see how the High Court has given one portion of the land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. Then we will challenge the High Court’s verdict in the Supreme Court. The decision on the construction of Ram temple at Ayodhya is possible only after the verdict of the Supreme Court,” said Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, chairman of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, earlier headed by Paramhans Ram Chandra Das. “It is not a question of victory or defeat for any section of society. There is no need for grand celebrations by the Hindus over the court’s judgment. If at all, they want to rejoice over the court’s verdict, they should do it inside their place of residence.”

However, the Nyas, affiliated to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, maintained the verdict had vindicated the stand of the Hindus that a temple existed at the disputed site and it was Lord Ram’s birthplace.

“We are happy that the High Court has recognised the historical fact that the Ramjanmabhoomi temple existed at the disputed site. We are also pleased that the court respected the faith and sentiments of the vast majority of Hindus that the Ram Janmabhoomi temple existed at the disputed site and also the right of Hindus to perform puja at the temple,” said the Mahant.

Asking all sections of society to respect the court’s verdict, the Mahant said, “Muslims should also respect the court verdict as they had been favouring all along the court’s verdict instead of settlement through negotiations.”

“The court’s verdict has upheld the report of the Archeological Survey of India and also the contention of the Hindus that the temple existed at the disputed site,” he said. “Islam also does not permit the construction of the mosque at the disputed land.”

On the trust plans to initiate the process of temple construction at the site, the Mahant said, “I wish to make no comment on this issue. The High Court’s verdict is the first step towards the process of construction of the temple, but the option of the Supreme Court is open.”  (indian express)
======================================================