Nearly seven years after the Allahabad High Court's September 30, 2010 order dividing the 2.7-acre disputed land at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site equally between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board, the Supreme Court is scheduled to take up cross-appeals on August 11.
The Supreme Court, that today began hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute, granted time till December 5 to translate the historic documents related to the case.
Mr Sibal brought to the notice of the bench that there are voluminous records, scripts and documents in seven languages, Sanskrit, Pali, Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Punjabi and Urdu which are to be translated to English.
The top court in relation to this stated that the period fixed for the completion is final and that it will not grant any further adjournment. Giving details, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy said if the court will dismiss the Opposition party's plea than he won't argue, adding the court has chose to listen the opening argument on 5th December. Mr. Sibal and Mr. Dhawan said the documents needed to be translated first and the translations have to be finalised before the hearings start.
Seventy-one years after losing a legal battle for ownership of Babri Masjid, Shia Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court, challenging a trial court order which had on March 30, 1946 declared the mosque as Sunni Waqf Board property. It has said that the affidavit is a politically motivated one and the same has no locus standi in court. They were supported by Nirmohi Akhara represented by senior counsel Sushi Kumar Jain. The Sunni board is clearly unhappy with these new developments. The Shia Board has claimed the demolished mosque was a Shia Waqf as Mir Baqi who got conwas a Shia Muslim. Babur stayed near Ayodhya only for 5-6 days whereas construction of mosque took more time. Many BJP leaders, including LK Advani and Murali Manohar Joshi, are facing a criminal case in connection with the demolition. The Sunni Board too appeared to have toned down its stand by favouring a court-supervised negotiated settlement of the festering dispute. But the parties to the dispute could not agree to the suggestion.style="text-align: center;"