Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) In the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill ultimately leading to the enactment of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it has been stated as follows :"There has been a long-standing dispute relating to the erstwhile Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid structure in Ayodhya which led to communal tension and violence from time to time and ultimately led to the destruction of the disputed structure on 6th December, 1992. This was followed by wide-spread communal violence which resulted in large number of deaths, injuries and destruction of property in various parts of the country. The said dispute has thus affected the maintenance of public order and harmony between different communities in the country. As it is necessary to maintain communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India it was considered necessary to acquire the site of the disputed structure and suitable adjacent land for setting up a complex which could be developed in a planned manner wherein a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library, museum and other suitable facilities can be set up. 2. and 3. **********" In the Preamble to the Act also, it has been mentioned as follows : "An act to provide for the acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS there has been a long-standing dispute relating to the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, situated in village Kot Ramachandra in Ayodhya in Pragana Haveil Avadh, in Tehsil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the State of Uttar Pradesh; AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the maintenance of public order and harmony between different communities in the country; AND WHEREAS it is necessary to maintain public order and to promote communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India; AND WHEREAS with a view to achieving the aforesaid objectives, it is necessary to acquire certain areas in Ayodhya; **********."
(2.) In M. Ismail Faruqui etc. vs. Union of India and others, (1994) 5 Suppl. SCR 1, the validity of the Act was challenged. This Court examined the scheme of the Act and held as under by majority of 3 : 2 : "1(a) Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act abates all pending suits and legal proceedings without providing for an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism for resolution of the dispute between the parties thereto. This is an extinction of the judicial remedy for resolution of the dispute amounting to negation of rule of law. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act is, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid. (b) The remaining provisions of the Act do not suffer from any invalidity on the construction made thereof by us sub-section (b) of Section 4 of the Act is several from the remaining Act. Accordingly the challenge to the constitutional validity of the remaining Act, except for sub-section (3) of Section 4 is rejected. (2) Irrespective of the status of a mosque under the Muslim Law applicable in the Islamic countries, the status of a mosque under the Mahomedan Law applicable in secular India is the same and equal to that of any other place of worship of any religion; and it does not enjoy any greater immunity from acquisition in exercise of the sovereign or prerogative power of the State, than that of the places of worship of the other religions. (3) The pending suits and other proceedings relating to the disputed area within which the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, stood, stand revived for adjudication of the dispute therein, together with the interim orders, made, except to the extent the interim orders stand modified by the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. (4) The vesting of the said disputed area in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3 of the Act is limited, as a statutory receiver, with the duty for its management and administration according to Section 7 requiring maintenance of status quo therein under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. The duty of the Central Government as the statutory receiver is to hand over the disputed area in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, in terms of the adjudication made in the suits for implementation of the final decision therein. This is the purpose for which the disputed area has been so acquired. (5) The power of the Court is in making further interim orders in the suits is limited to, and circumscribed by, the area outside the ambit of Section 7 of the Act. (6) The vesting of the adjacent area, other than the disputed area, acquired by the Act in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3 of the Act is absolute with the power of management and administration thereof in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, till its further vesting in any authority or other body or trustees of any trust in accordance with Section 6 of the Act. The further vesting of the adjacent area, other than the disputed area, in accordance with Section 6 of the Act has to be made at the time and in the manner indicated, in view of the purpose of its acquisition. (7) The meaning of the word vest in Section 3 and Section 6 of the Act has to be so understood in the different contexts. (8) Section 8 of the Act is meant for payment of compensation to owners of the property vesting absolutely in the Central Government the title to which is not in dispute being in excess of the disputed area which alone is the subject-matter of the revived suits. It does not apply to the disputed area, title to which has to be adjudicated in the suits and in respect of which the Central Government is merely the statutory receiver as indicated, with the duty to restore it to the owner in terms of the adjudication made in the suits. (9) The challenge to acquisition of any part of the adjacent area on the ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the processed objective of setting the long-standing dispute cannot be examined at this stage. However, the area found to be superfluous on the exact area needed for the purpose being determined on adjudication of the dispute, must be restored to the undisputed owners. (10) Rejection of the challenge by the undisputed owners to acquisition of some religious properties in the vicinity of the disputed area, at this stage is with the liberty granted to them to renew their challenge, if necessary at a later appropriate stage, in case of continued retention by the Central Government of their property in excess of the exact area determined to be needed on adjudication of the dispute. (11) Consequently, the Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 made by the President of India under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India is superfluous and unnecessary and does not require to be answered. For this reason, we very respectfully decline to answer it and return the same. (12) The questions relating to the constitutional validity of the said Act and maintainability of the Special Reference are decided in these terms."
(3.) In this proceeding, which is initiated as public interest petition, several reliefs were claimed but after the interested parties were impleaded and their pleadings were put forth what has crystallized is as to the manner in which the adjacent land should be preserved till the 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 bhumipuja 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. ;