There can be no peace without justice: Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in review plea against Ayodhya verdict

Muslim orgsation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on Monday filed a petition seeking review of Supreme Court's order which allowed a temple to be constructed on a 2.77-acre plot where Babri Mosque once stood and asserted that there can be "no peace without justice".

On November 9 last month, the apex court had awarded the disputed land to the deity Ram Lalla and gave the Sunni Waqf Board a five-acre plot in Ayodhya to build a mosque.

"The review petitioner is conscious of the sensitive nature of the issue and understands the need to put a quietus to the issue in dispute so as to maintain peace and harmony, however, there can be no peace without justice," the petition, filed by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind's President, Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, stated.

The petition sought a stay on the operation of apex court's judgment and also on order passed by Allahabad High Court in 2010 in this regard. The High Court had bifurcated the land into three parts between Hindu and Muslims parties.

The review petition also requested the apex court to restrain the Central government from taking any steps. The orgsation further said that the alternate land of five acres accorded to them was neither pleaded nor prayed for.

The petitioner stated that though the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs - the original plaintiff - is not preferring a review petition, the suit was filed in a representative capacity for the entire Muslim community.

The petitioner said that the Muslim community worshipped at Babri Masjid from 1528 till 1949. "From 1528 to 1857 there was no whisper or demand of any place called Sri Ram's birthplace within the precincts of Babri Masjid. For the first time a Chabutra was illegally constructed within the boundary but outside the inner courtyard of the Babri Masjid," it claimed.

The petitioner said that the top court accepted the testimonies of the Hindu witnesses despite the fact that they were unable to identify any pictures of the disputed site. "The testimonies of the Muslim witnesses were rejected due to flimsy reasons which did not concern the issue in relation to which they were deposing," review petition said.

The petitioner said that even though the court condoned the illegal acts committed by Hindu parties in 1934, 1949 and 1992, it awarded the disputed site to the same party which "based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts".

( With inputs from ANI )