M A I N   N E W S

Trust claims ownership of Ayodhya site

Faizabad, July 12
In a new development regarding the legal position of the disputed site on the acquired land at Ayodhya, the Raj Rajeshwari Sitaram Trust has filed a civil suit, claiming that it is the real owner of the whole area.

The suit, filed through trustee Shivendra Shahi in a civil court here yesterday, contended that the revenue records were erroneous in which the land was recorded as that of Nazul.

Shahi, in the suit, said the trust was registered long before Independence under the Indian Trust Act, 1860.

He contended that the property at Ayodhya was vested with the trust by his ancestor, the Raja of Deara estate in Sultanpur district.

He said the legal status of trust property could not be amended or altered and his ‘zamindari’ was still intact in urban areas at Faizabad and Ayodhya as these lands were outside the purview of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act of 1952. The judge issued notices to 17 parties, including the Uttar Pradesh Government, the Nazul Department and the Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority, in connection with the suit.

The court fixed July 22 as the date for further hearing on the matter.

CHENNAI: Admitting that his second letter to the All-India Personal Law Board might have caused some doubts and misunderstanding, Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati said on Saturday that there was no pressure on him on his botched Ayodhya proposals rejected by the board last Sunday.

He told reporters here that he was in touch with the board’s mediators and was hopeful of an early solution to the Ayodhya issue.

The seer said the timing of his second letter of July 1, on the basis of which the board had rejected his proposals, might have caused some doubts and misunderstanding among the board members, coming as it did after his meeting with VHP leaders.

He said the board had some doubts regarding his mentioning of Kashi and Mathura in his second letter. The letter was ready by June 28 and there was some delay in typing it, he said.

Maintaining that the courts could never settle the issue, which could only be resolved through negotiations, he asserted that the board’s rejection of his proposals was not a failure. — PTI