Ayodhya land dispute: Supreme Court posts matter for further hearing on July 13

The Supreme Court on Friday resumed hearing on Babri Masjid-Ram Temple case, the decades-old socio-religious debate between Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra on May 17 had heard submissions on behalf of Hindu groups that had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts. The plea said the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.

The special bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S K Nazeer, is hearing 13 appeals, which were filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

In the landmark hearing, the Allahabad High Court in 2010 mandated a three-way division of the disputed site in Ayodhya. It directed to partition the land equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Here are the Highlights on Ayodhya hearing:

# 15:59 PM: Supreme Court fixes July 13 as the next date of hearing in the Ayodhya Land dispute case.

Supreme Court fixes July 13 as the next date of hearing in Ayodhya Land dispute case. pic.twitter.com/NbYiMurLym

— ANI (@ANI) July 6, 2018

# 15:20 PM: Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhawan told the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court 'Mosques are not built for fun. Hundreds congregate there to offer prayers, are they not an essential part of practice

Ayodhya matter: Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhawan told the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court 'Mosques are not built for fun. Hundreds congregate there to offer prayers, are they not an essential part of practice?'

— ANI (@ANI) July 6, 2018

Earlier, M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.

He had told the bench that the observations made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site had a bearing on the outcome of the title case.

However, the Hindu groups had said the issue relating to the observations that the mosque was not integral to Islam has already been settled and cannot be reopened.