After several efforts at mediation failed, a five-judge bench of the top court concluded hearings last month.
The social media was abuzz with reactions from leaders across political parties on the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment pronounced on Saturday, appealing everyone in the country to maintain peace and tranquility.
Under the ruling, the Ayodhya site should be handed over to a trust to oversee the construction of a Hindu temple, while a separate piece of land in the area would be given over to Muslim groups to build a new mosque.
"These 5 acres of land don't mean anything to us", he said. The Centre will also hand over the rest of the land to the trustees.
In his book, Carnegy has attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur in 1528 and, in his opinion, numerous columns of an erstwhile temple were used in the construction of the Babri mosque.
United States diplomat says was urged to tweet support for Trump
Other State Department officials have already appeared in front of the inquiry panel, defying a White House order to steer clear. The committees have heard testimony behind closed doors for weeks and the inquiry is moving into a public phase.
The contentions of Nirmohi Akhara, which was one of the litigants in the case, of being a shebait (devotee) were also rejected by the court. The sect claims to have run the Ram temple for years before the erection of the Babri Masjid in the 16th century. A report quoted the UP government release as saying, "The Chief Minister has said the state administration is committed to maintaining law and order in the state and ensuring the safety of its people".
Anxiety has built up in Ayodhya, where many want to see the temple built, but both Muslim and Hindu residents say that above all they want to see an end to the protracted dispute. The solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible.
This judge observed that evidence on record clearly establishes that the Hindus' faith and belief that the mosque was constructed at the birth place of Lord Ram, and the three-dome structure was the birth place of the deity.
The unanimous decision by five judges led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi disappointed some Muslims while Hindus rejoiced.
Authorities stepped up security nationwide for the decision and Mr Modi called for calm, fearing the final ruling on an issue that has been a focal point of Hindu-Muslim tensions for decades could again trigger unrest. India's Home Ministry has asked all states to be on alert. The court said in view of the evidence, the disputed 2.77 acres of land was awarded for a temple, but it invoked the Article 142 to grant 5 acres for a mosque as well. "But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one".
Google Play Points Launched To Reward Users For Downloading, Subscribing Through App
Any Android user has experienced apps from the Play Store , and most of us couldn't imagine our lives without them. It will likely increase engagement as users love to receive rewards.
On December 22, 1949, dozens of people break into the mosque and set up idols of the gods Ram and Sita. There was a protest from the Muslim side.
"Muslims should not be deprived of a structure; will get alternative site for masjid", the court ruled. "Faith of Hindus is undisputed that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya", ruled the court. "The Supreme Court had listened to all the parties with patience and gave a decision with consent of all".
Hindus and Muslims in India have been arguing over a 2.77-acre patch of land for centuries.
Delhi-based criminal lawyer Ajay Verma explained that these are essentially two very different cases - one a title dispute related to ownership of the land, and the second a criminal trial, which goes beyond ownership.
US formally begins to leave the Paris climate agreement
Agreement rules prevented a country from pulling out in the first three years after the November 4, 2016, ratification. Many critics of the Paris agreement say America is the leader in cutting carbon emissions, but that's not true.