VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The bar on religious activity on the acquired land near the disputed Babri Masjid should be operative till the disposal of title suits by the Allahabad High Court not only to maintain communal harmony but also to fulfil the objectives of Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.

Headnote:Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993-Acquisition of 67.703 acres of land for setting up a complex to resolve dispute relating to erstwhile Ram Janam Bhumi and destruction of Babri Masjid structure-Constitution of India-Article 32-Public Interest Petition-As to the manner in which the adjacent land should be preserved till the final disposal of the title suits pending in the High Court of Allahabad-Apex Court passing interim order on 13.3.2002 as modified on 14.3.2002 that on the acquired land no religious activity of any kind by any one be permitted or allowed to take place till the disposal of petition-Final hearing of the petition-Contention that interim orders of March 2002 are beyond the scope of the decision of M. Ismail Faruqui s case 1994(5) SCR 1-Whether correct? (No)-Whether permission be given to Union of India to construct a Ram Temple in acquired land near the disputed Babri Masjid? (No)-Status quo be maintained until disposal of title suits in the High Court of Allahabad-Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
Held : (Referring to 1994(5) SCR 1) - From the observations quoted above, it is clear that the adjacent land, though vest in the Central Government, will have to be utilised in different manners depending upon the outcome of the litigation in respect of the disputed property. Thus the manner or extent to which the adjacent land could be used would depend upon the final outcome of the pending dispute in the High Court. The acquisition of larger extent of land is incidental to main purpose. Thus, the two acquired lands are intrinsically connected with one another and cannot be separated at this stage of the proceedings for different treatment during the interregnum. Further, it has also been made clear that if any land becomes superfluous such land will have to be returned to the owner who may have to initiate appropriate proceedings to challenge the validity of the acquisition as indicated in the course of the judgment of this Court in M. Ismail Faruqui s case (supra). If land is transferred to any other body or trust as provided under Section 6 of the Act at this stage further complications may arise. Therefore, status quo will have to be maintained until suits are finally disposed of. We hold that the orders of this Court made earlier are not beyond the scope of the decision in M. Ismail Faruqui s case. Above all, status quo has been maintained from 1992 onwards and no activities as are set out in the course of the application have been required to be done so far. When for a long time, a particular state of affairs has prevailed - as in the present case for over a decade - and when the adjudication of the disputes which are pending before the High Court are reaching final stages, it will not be appropriate to disturb that state of affairs. It is well known that preservation of property in its original condition is absolutely necessary to give appropriate reliefs to the parties on the termination of the proceedings before the courts and, therefore, we do no think that this is one of those cases in which it becomes necessary to disturb that state. 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. (Paras 14, 15 & 16)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-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 the 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, museun and other suitable facilities can be set up.

2. xxx xxx xxx

3. xxx xxx xxx

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 Ramchandra in Ayodhya, in Pragana Haveli 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 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;

Xxx xxx xxx.

2. In M. Ismail Faruqui etc. v. Union of India & Ors., 1994 Supp. (5) 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 (3) 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 of, 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 p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document