This is in continuation of the previous post
The historical narrative of Ayodhya verdict continues from the sublime to the secular to pin down the ownership issue of 'nazrul' land, the 'disputed' site of Ayodhya:
4306…The Barhaspatyasutra (edited by Dr. F.W. Thomas) mentions eight great tirthas each of Visnu, Siva and Sakti, that yield all siddhis." (pages 677-678).
4307. The above book at page 736 under the heading "List of tirthas" says:
"Ayodhya--(in Fyzabad District in U.P.) on the Ghagra. One of the seven holy cities (vide p. 678n above). It is also a place of pilgrimage of Jains, as some of their
saints were born there. Atharva-veda X. 2. 31 and Tai, A.
27. 2 (astacakra navadvara devanam pur-Ayodhya) tasyam hiranyayah kosah svargo loko Jyotisavrtah II), V. 60. 24-25 and 70. 2 (capital of king Rtuparna and of Rama), Br. IV. 40. 91. Ag. 109. 24 (Ayodya papanasan).
According to Ram, I. 5. 5-7 the country of Kosala had Sarayu flowing through it; Ayodhya, 12 yojanas long and three broad, was kosala capital founded by Manu. Kosala was one of the 16 mahajanapadas of India in ancient times (vide Anguttara Nikaya, vol. IV. p. 252). Later on, Kosala was divided into two, viz. Uttara Kosala and Daksina Kosala divided by the Sarju or Ghagra river.
The Raghuvamsa holds Ayodhya to be capital of Uttarakosala (VI. 71 and IX. 1). Vide also Va. 88. 20 ff. For a long line of kings of Ayodhya from Iksvaku and P. VI. 208. 46-47 (for Daksina Kosala and Uttara Kosala). Saketa is generally identified with Ayodhya. Vide T.P. p. 496 (gives its boundaries from SK) and under Saketa. Dr. B.C. Law contributes a well documented and learned paper on 'Ayodhya' to J. of the Ganganath Jha R. Society, vol. I, pp. 423-443."
4308. Sri Mishra submits that Ayodhya and its relation with Lord Rama as his place of birth is well recognised and mentioned in ancient Hindu Literature.
The existence of "Vedi" at the disputed place is mentioned by Father Joseph Tieffenthaler in his work, translated in French titled as
"Description Historique Et Geographique Del'inde" first published in 1787 by Jean Bernoulli.
4381… Whether it is 3000 year old or 5000 year old or more than a few lacs year old may not be of much consequence for us.
Today, Christianity is more than 2000 and Islam 143 years old.
We should not be understood saying that before Islam as propounded by Prophet Muhammad or Christianity as per the teaching of the Jesus Christ, there was no religion whatsoever, but this is what normally or commonly understand. The religious scriptures and literatures of the religions therefore, though in abundance conform to the point of view, requirement and necessities of the corresponding period. Because of its own certain antiquity amongst Hindu scriptures, we find sometimes, mention of such things which become difficult to digest on our conceivable notion and logic and the limitation of our understanding which we have in the light of the information available to us currently.
4382. May be on account of non availability of the reliable feed back some of the aspects of Hindu scriptures are termed by others as Myth, legend, epic etc., doubting its historicity, ignoring the fact that the common people are so deep embedded in blood that it is beyond imagination for them to even think of a situation where those faith and belief can be termed as a mere fiction and not a matter of historicity. For example, the two of the world's biggest works known as 'Ramayana' and 'Mahabharatha' of Hindu scriptures, other people started to call it 'Epic' and that we have followed since the days of British India and now also.
Initially the European writers in their own understanding find it unthinkable even the existence of such an antique society and culture and that too so perfect and so well defined, sophisticated, but complicated in different facets. With the passage of time the thoughts and approach have undergone a sea of change and now we find quite a sectionable intelligentsia who is changing its views and that is not merely on some kind of altered hypothesis etc., but due to the cemented, reliable information, they have collected in the mean time.
In brief, it can be said that merely because I am not able to trace my history of succession it will not mean that I do not have a chain of succession. One's inability in finding something cannot result in a conclusion that actually nothing existed. There has to be much more. The mathematical, astronomical calculation of the learned people in ancient India have been found to be reasonably correct though they are presumed to lack so called advanced technology for arriving at such conclusions.
It is easy to discard something at the threshold but difficult to find reason and logic behind its existence. Difficulty cannot be a reason to opt for an easier method instead of the cumbersome one. If Indian culture and society could have survived for such a long time even though other ancient cultures, whether Egyptian, Greek or Roman have lost behind the time, then one has to find out the reason for its sustenance. It cannot be brushed aside loosely. This is a kind of approach, thoughts, faith and belief of one part of the litigants before us and their contemporary opponent wants in existence of
positive material irrespective of the time and antiquity matter relates to.
The reason being that the issue has been brought in a Court of law which is presently governed by the system we have inherited from a totally different culture i.e. British legacy where they have told us to decide the dispute only on getting evidence and not otherwise. The issues relating to faith and belief and that too, which had continued from generations to generations, from hundreds and thousands years neither depend on the so called existence of evidence nor one can shake such custom which they have received by tradition for want of evidence. It is not totally a different concept and notion, independent in its own ways.
In the erstwhile territory of India, before entry of the far east people or from other parts of world it appears that natives had their own traditions, system, faith and belief, and the society had different kinds of religious concept.
The subsequent scholars tried to bifurcate this religious system of ancient India into that of Aryan and Dravidian but what we find is that barring a few differences in the matter of system of worship etc., the core belief and faith remained same.
The entire society remained connected with a common thread of religious faith. This difference, more or less, was political.
It is in this system, where we find the people in ancient India believed in the Avtaars of God which found mention in Vedic texts.
All these Avtaars in one or the other way we find had a specific objective and ultimately helped to save the world, human being and other creatures and also to guide the living being in lives, some are to attract the people back to the spiritual domain.
4383. On the one hand when modern day's science believe in the system of universe controlled by various principle of energy, then Indian Society was glued with a common platform by the learned sages and others telling that the Supreme Lord maintains all the planets and universe. It is He who assume roles and incarnation to perform pastimes to reclaim those in the mode of goodness. They were led to believe that throughout the
many millions of Universe in which the Supreme Being appears, the objective is to apprise Society and bring it to senses, in particular, one who are in the higher grades of consciousness, receptive to understand their spiritual relation with him. He also sends his pure representatives and instruction to guide people. The object is common i.e. to bind the living beings back towards the spiritual world.
It is also said that source of various Avtaars within this cosmic creation is the Lord of the Universe i.e. Garbhodakashayi Vishnu (see Srimad Bhagwatam 1.3.5). The form of the Lord, that descends to the material world to create, is called Avtaar.
4384. We are not going into that various Avtars of Lord Vishnu according to the Hindu tradition and in details thereof. Since Ayodhya is known by the name of Lord Rama and,
therefore, one can presume that the religious structures must have connection with Lord Rama in one or the other way. The stone inscription found in 1992, as we have already discussed, at least show this much that a temple of Vishnu Hari was constructed by the erstwhile Gahadwal King in 11th or 12th century, i.e., much before the visit of Babar near Ayodhya.
In no other record, reference of Vishnu Hari Mandir at Ayodhya has been pointed out, meaning thereby, before the history of Hinduism started in writing in a proper way, that temple must have disappeared for one or the other reason.
At Ayodhya, the people used to visit for Darshan of Lord Rama's places is also evident from the record of Sikh religion showing that Guru Nanak Dev Ji came to Ayodhya in 1510 or 1511, told his companion that it is the birthplace of Lord Rama and then went for Darshan.
Even for a moment we are not drawing any inference that the Sikhs religious texts anywhere identify the place of birth of Lord Rama but this is sufficient to point out that even before the entry of Babar in the then Hindustan, Ayodhya was already a well established Hindu Tirtha for the followers and believers of Lord Rama. The custom of worship of Lord Rama has already begun long back.
… 4390. In the middle of 19th century, i.e., as we have already observed, between the 1853 to 1855 there appears to be a major confrontation between Hindu and Muslims at Ayodhya resulting in hundreds of deaths. Some says that 75 muslims were slained while others say that the actual figure was about 200 Hindus and 75 Muslims. Be that as it may, that is not very relevant for the point in issue. We are concerned as to what impel the two communities to fought so frightfully that resulted in such a large number of casualties, if the disputed place was an ordinary place of worship of Muslims having no other history or antiquity attached with it.
The conduct, the attitude, the insistence on the part of Hindus, continuously, atleast as is evident from the record, i.e., from the time of Tieffenthaler and onwards, show that it was for something really serious on account whereof
Hindus were not able to give up their claim.
Probably for this reason, despite all odds, they continued to pursue their claim at the place in dispute. (Vol.20.pdf)
… 4428. It is not disputed by the parties before this Court that the Nazul plot, in which the building in dispute existed, was recorded as
Nazul, plot no. 583, Khasra of 1931 of Mohalla Kot
Ram Chandra known as Ramkot,
City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate Ayodhya).
In the revenue records, plot number is different. The Nazul number of the plot in which the building in dispute situate is not disputed. It is also admitted by all the parties that the plot in which disputed building existed was recorded Nazul in the First Settlement 1861 and had continued so even when the suit in question was filed.
4429. "Nazul land" means land owned by the Government. It is the own pleading of Sunni Board in para 24(B) of the written statement filed in Suit-5.
4430. In the Legal Glossary 1992, fifth edition, published by the Legal Department of the Government of India at page 589, the meaning of the word "Nazul" has been given as
"Rajbhoomi i.e. Government land".
It is an Arabic word and it refers to a land annexed to Crown. During the British Regime, immoveable property of individuals, Zamindars, Nawabs and
Rajas when confiscated for one or the other reason, it was termed as "Nazul property".
The reason being that neither it was acquired nor purchased after making payment. In the old record, we are told when they used to be written in Urdu, this kind of land was shown as "Jaidad Munzabta".
4431. For dealing with such property under the authority of the Lt. Governor of North Western provinces, two orders were issued in October, 1846 and October, 1848 wherein after the words "Nazul property" its English meaning was given as "Escheats to the Government".
Sadar Board of Revenue on 20th May, 1845 issued a circular order in reference to Nazul land and in para 2 thereof it mentioned
"The Government is the proprietor of those land and no valid title to them can be derived but from the Government."
The Nazul land was also termed as confiscated estate. Under circular dated 13th July, 1859, issued by the Government of North Western Provinces, every Commissioner was obliged to keep a final confiscation statement of each district and lay it before the Government for orders.
The kingdom of Oudh was annexed by East India Company in 1856. It declared the entire land as vested in the Government and thereafter settled the land to various individuals Zamindars, Nawabs etc.
4432. At Lucknow revolt against the British Company broke up in May, 1857 which is known as the first war of independence which very quickly angle a substantial part of north western provinces. After failure of the above revolution, the then Governor General Lord Canning on 15th May, 1858 issued a proclamation confiscating propriety rights in the soil with the exception of five or six persons who had given support and assistance to British Officers. This land was resettled first for a period of three years and then permanent propriety rights were given to certain Talukdars and Zamindars by grant of 'Sanad' under Crown Grants Act.
In the meantime we all know that under the Government of India Act, 1858 the entire Indian territory under the control of East India Company was placed under Crown w.e.f. First November, 1858.
… 4457. This issue pertains to the identification of the property in dispute as described in the plaint. Counsel for defendants No.4 and 5 submitted that the suit as framed show the property in respect whereto relief was sought as mentioned in the annexures no.1, 2 and 3 to the plaint and do not specify of the boundaries of the property in respect whereto Suit-5 was filed.
However, so far as the disputed site and structure is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties in respect thereto either about its identification or description. After the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. M. Ismail Farooqui's case (supra) holding acquisition of property by the Central Government under Act, 1993, except the site in dispute, valid, the only area which is now required to dealt with by us in all these cases is that which comprises of the of outer and inner courtyard including disputed structure.
4458. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the property in dispute against which now the Court is required to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief or not is well identified and known to all the parties, there is no ambiguity. Issue No.5 is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the plaintiffs. (Vol. 21.pdf)