Ayodhya Verdict: Supreme Court rejects plea to refer the case to a larger bench, says 'Matter will only be treated as a land issue'

In a historic judgment on Ayodhya verdict, three-judge bench of Supreme Court has ruled that case will t be referred to a larger bench, and matter will only be treated as a 'land issue'. verdict was prounced by Justice Ashok Bhushan, who was also speaking on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra. or judge in this matter, Justice Abdul Nazeer gave out dissenting judgment.

Justice Ashok Bhushan said, "Every judgment must be re as applicable to particular facts. Court can follow only logical reasoning. One of main submissions was that mosque cant be acquired. Ismail Farooqi judgment was in a specific context. statement that mosque is t an essential part of Islam was on basis that mosque in question could t be acquired."

" Supreme Court h said that unless place of offering of prayers has a particular significance, place shall t affect right to worship.  statements me in Ismail Farooqi were in relation to acquisition of that particular mosque.  constitution bench held that if a place is of significance, n demolition of that place will result in violation of fundamental rights.  exception can be taken to constitution bench judgment. Observations need to be understood as observations in context of land acquisition and thing more," prounced Justice Bhushan.

Furr, Justice Bhushan also ded that appeals for Babri Masjid will begin in October. "SC to begin hearing Babri appeals in week commencing 29 October.  appeals have been pending for a long time and require speedy disposal. 

Supreme Court delivered its verdict on a batch pleas by Muslim groups on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, observations me by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was t integral to Islam. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer prounced verdict, which h reserved it on July 20.

M Siddiq, one of original litigants of Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, h assailed certain findings of 1994 verdict in case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was t integral to prayers offered by followers of Islam.

It was argued by Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that "sweeping" observation of apex court in verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as "it h and will have a bearing" on Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.

Senior vocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, h said that observation that mosques were t essential for practising Islam were me by apex court without any enquiry or considering religious texts.

Uttar Presh government h earlier told top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay hearing in "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of observation in 1994 verdict that a mosque was t integral to Islam.

ditional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for UP government, h said this dispute has been awaiting final judication for "almost a century".

He h also said that issue of observation was neir taken up by any litigant since 1994, r in present appeals which were filed in 2010 after high court's verdict.

state government h said law decided by top court in Ismail Farooqi case was " correct law which does t deserve to be disturbed eir by referring it as belatedly prayed for or orwise".

Earlier, Hindu groups h opposed plea of ir Muslim counterparts that 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was t integral to prayers offered by followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.

observations were me in land acquisition matter pertaining to Ayodhya site and apex court h to consider two aspects as to wher a mosque could be acquired at all and wher a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part.