Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

M. Siddiq @ H.m. Siddiq, Jamiat Ulama-i-hind v. Mahant Suresh Das And Others Etc. Etc

M. Siddiq @ H.m. Siddiq, Jamiat Ulama-i-hind v. Mahant Suresh Das And Others Etc. Etc

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No''s. 10866-10867 of 2010, Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2011, S.L.P. (C) - CC No. 3600 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 2215 of 2011, SLP (C) No. 7815-7818 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 2011, I.A, No''s. 7 and 8, Civil Appeal No. 2894 of Appeal Civil D No. D38217 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4192 of 2011 and Appeal Civil D. No. D3828 of 2011 | 09-05-2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010

1. The appeals are admitted for hearing.

2. During the pendency of the appeals, the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court shall remain stayed.

3. Further, we are pleased to note that there is complete unanimity on maintaining status quo and all the parties are in agreement that order may be passed for maintaining status quo on the disputed site and on the adjoining land.

4. We, therefore, pass the following orders:

During the pendency of the appeals, the parties shall maintain status quo in regard to suit land, as directed by an earlier judgment and order passed by this Court in Dr M. Ismail Frauqui and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, vide. paragraphs 86, 87, which are reproduced below:

86. The best solution in the circumstances, on revival of suits is, therefore, to maintain status quo as on 7-1-1993 when the law came into force modifying the interim orders in the suits to that extent by curtailing the practice of worship by Hindus in the disputed area to the extent it stands reduced under the Act instead of conferring on them the larger right available under the court orders till intervention was made by legislation.

87. Section 7(2) achieves this purpose by freezing the interim arrangement for worship by Hindu devotees reduced to this extent and curtails the larger right they enjoyed under the court orders, ensuring that it cannot be enlarged till final adjudication of the dispute and consequent transfer of the disputed area to the party found entitled to the same. This being the purpose and true effect of Section 7(2), it promotes and strengthens the commitment of the nation to secularism instead of negating it. To hold this provision as anti-secular and slanted in favour of the Hindu community 420 would be to frustrate an attempt to thwart anti-secularism and unwittingly support the forces which were responsible for the events of 6-12-1992.

Further, as regards the land adjacent to the suit land which was the subject matter of acquisition by the Central Government, the parties shall maintain status quo, as directed by the order of this Court in Mohd. Aslam @ Bhure Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, 1 vide. paragraphs 4 and 5 read with paragraph 17 of the report, which read as follows:

4. In this proceeding, which is initiated as public interest petition, several reliefs were claimed but after the interested parties were impleaded and their pleading were put forth what has crystallized is as to the manner in which the adjacent land should be (SIC) final decision in the title suit pending in the High Court of Allahabad. This Court, on 13.3.2002, while issuing the rule, made the following order:

In the meantime, we direct that on the 67.703 acres of land located in revenue plot Nos. 159 and 160 in village Kot Ramchandra which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place.

Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall be handed over by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained by the Government till the disposal of this writ petition nor shall any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in connection therewith. This is subject to further orders which may be passed in this case.

5. The aforesaid order was clarified by another order dated 14.3.2002 in the following terms:

After hearing the learned Attorney General, as there was some ambiguity in para 3 of our order dated 13-3-2002, we correct para 3 of our order as follows:

In the meantime we direct that on the 67.703 acres of acquired land located in various plots detailed in the Schedule to Acquisition or Central Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place.

17. On consideration of the entire matter, we are of the view that the order made by this Court on 13.3.2002, as modified by the order made on 14.3.2002, should be operative until disposal of the suits in the High Court of Allahabad not only to maintain communal harmony but also to fulfil other objectives of the Act. The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.

5. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate appearing for the Appellant requested the Court to make some further directions. There is no objections from any side to the request made by Mr. Rao. Hence, we make the following directions:

6. Call for the records of other Original Suit No. 4/1989 and other connected suits (being OOS No. 1/1989, OOS No. 3/1989 and OOS No. 5/1989) from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;

7. Call for the digitized versions of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.9.2010 in Microsoft Word format and not in PDF format;

8. Call for the digitized versions of the record prepared by the Registry of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, containing the scanned copies of the record in OOS No. 1/1989, OOS No. 3/1989, OOS No. 4/1989 and OOS No. 5/1989, and compact discs (C Ds) containing the same;

9. The Registry of this Court is directed to provide to the parties C Ds containing electronic copies of the digitized record summoned.

10. Applications for substitutions, that are free from defects will be taken up for orders after the ensuing summer vacation.

11. In the meanwhile, the other side(s) may examine the question whether or not they would raise any objection in regard to any substitution petitions.

12. Appropriate directions for translation of the High Court records will be given later on.

13. Permission to file lengthy list of dates and events is granted.

14. Application for exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order is allowed.

15. Copies of the judgment is not required to be accompanied with the process fee and spare copies.

16. Application for intervention is rejected.

17. Caveat filed by Mr. R.C. Gubrele, and Mr. B.K. Satija, counsel is rejected.

Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2011

Civil Appeal No. 2215 of 2011

Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 2011

Civil Appeal No. 2894 of 2011

Civil Appeal No. 4192 of 2011

18. Appeals are admitted for hearing.

19. Interim orders in the same term as passed in appeal Nos. 10866-10867/2010.

S.L.P.(C) Nos. 7815-7818 of 2011

S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 3600 of 2011

20. Permission to file SLP is granted.

21. Delay condoned.

22. Leave granted.

23. Interim orders in the same term as passed in appeal Nos. 10866-10867/2010.

Civil Appeal D No. D38217 of 2010

Civil Appeal D No. D3828 of 2011

24. Permission to file civil appeals is granted.

25. Delay in refiling is condoned.

26. The appeals are admitted for hearing.

27. Interim orders in the same term as in appeal Nos. 10866-10867/2010.

Advocate List

  • P.P. Rao, Anis Suhrawardy, Shamama Anis, S. Mehdi Imam, Tabrez Ahmad, Atif Suhrawardy, in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, Rajiv Dhawan, Zafaryab Jilani, M.A. Siddiqui, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Syed Kafeel Ahmed, Syed Ahmad Saud, M. Taiyab Khan, Shuaib-uddin, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Zaki Ahmed Khan, in C.A. No. 821/2011, Varinder Kumar Sharma, in C.C. No. 3600/2011, P.P. Rao, Huzefa Ahmedi, Ejaz Maqbool, Nakul Dewan, Sagheer Ahmed Khan, Jawed Patel, Karan Lahiri, Mrigan Prabhaker, Zaki Ahmad Khan, in C.A. No. 2215/2011, Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Anil Kumar Verma, U.N. Goyal, Trishna Mohan, in SLP C Nos. 7815-7818/2011, P.S. Narasima, Vivek Sharma, Bankim K. Kulshreshtha, R.C. Gubrele, in C.A. No. 2636/2011, Rakesh Dwiwedi, Zafaryab Jilani, Mushtaque Siddiqui, Amit Sibal, M.R. Shamshad, Irshad Ahmad, Zaki Ahmad Khan, Taiyab Khan, Ahmad S. Azhar, Nikhil Sharma, Faisal Sherwani, T. Ahmad, F. Iqbal, Aamir Naseem, in C.A. No. 2894/2011, C.S. Vaidaianathan, Ravi Shankar Prasad, K.N. Bhat, Madan M. Pandey, S.S. Shamshery, Bhupender Yadav, P.V. Yogeswaran, in C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, Ranjit Kumar, P.S. Narasimha, Vikramjit Banerjee, Ruchi Kohli, in C.A.D. No. 3828/2011, Anup George Chaudhari, June Chaudhari, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Zafaryab Jilani, Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Taiyyab Khan, Zaki Ahmad Khan, T. Srinivasa Murthy, Irshad Hanif, Rifat Ara, Danish Sher Khan and Sumita, in C.A. No. 4192/2011, for the Appellant; R.C. Gubrele in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, C.A. Nos. 2215, 2894 and 821 of 2011 and SLP (C) Nos. 7815-7818/2011, B.K. Satija in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, Barun Kumar Sinha in C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, Pratibh Sinha in C.A.D. No. 3828/2011, Chander Prakash Kaushik in C.C. No. 3600/2011 and SLP (C) Nos. 7815-7818/2011, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, Irshad Hanif in C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, Rifat Ara in C.A. No. 2215/2011, Danish Sher Khan in C.A. No. 2894/2011, Manoj V. George in C.A. No. 821/20111, Alex Joseph in C.C. No. 3600/2011, SLP (C) Nos. 7815-7818/2011, M.N. Krishnamani, in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, S.S. Shamshery in C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, P. Parmeshwaran in C.A. No. 2215/2011, Sharad Singhania in C.A. No. 2894/2011, K.K. Venugopal, in C.A.D. No. 3828/2011, Pallav Sisodia Asr. in C.A. No. 2636/2011, D. Bharat Kumar in C.A. No. 821/2011, Balasubramanyam Kumarsu in C.C. No. 3600/2011, Deepshikha Bharati, Anish Kumar Gupta, in SLP (C) Nos. 7815-7818/2011, Amit Pawan in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, Prafulla Behera in C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, Ranjana Agnihotri in C.A. No. 2894/2011, R.K. Tiwari, Dolly Prabhakar, Prakash T.A., Brahmajeet Mishra, in SLP (C) Nos. 7815-7818/2011, Shahid Anwar in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, Minhajul Rashid in C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, Aamir Naseem in C.A. No. 2215/2011, Syed Rehan in C.A. No. 821/2011, Naved Khan, Rakesh Joshi, in SLP (C) Nos.7815-7818/2011, Zaki Ahmad Khan in C.A. Nos. 10866-67/2010, F. Iqbal in C.A.D. No. 38217/2010, M.R. Shamshad in C.A. No. 2215/2011, Aamir Naeem in C.A.D. No. 3828/2011, T. Ahmad in C.A. Nos. 2636/2011, 821/2011, C.C.No. 3600/2011, SLP (C) Nos. 7815-7818/2011 and A.S. Pundir in C.C. No. 3600/2011, Vijay Hansaria Sanjay Sarin and Manjusha Wadhwa, for the Respondent

Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
Eq Citations
  • (2011) 15 SCC 440
  • 2011 (6) SCALE 340
  • 2011 (4) UJ (SC) 2232
  • LQ/SC/2011/697
Head Note

Constitution of India — Arts. 136, 129 and 135 — Ayodhya title dispute — Issue of maintainability of appeals — Appeals admitted for hearing — During pendency of appeals, operation of judgment and decree passed by Allahabad High Court stayed — During pendency of appeals, parties directed to maintain status quo in regard to suit land and land adjacent to suit land — During pendency of appeals, parties directed to maintain status quo as directed by Supreme Court in Dr M Ismail Frauqui and Others Vs Union of India UOI and Others and Mohd Aslam Bhure Vs Union of India UOI and Others — Further directions issued (Paras 1 to 4)