Provisions Involved

Section 6 and 7 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993


This case is commonly known as the “Ayodhya Land Dispute Case”. Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya, which is located on the banks of the river Sarayu, as depicted in the Ramayana. This place is known as Ayodhya, which is situated in Uttar Pradesh. As per Hindu beliefs, an ancient temple stood at the birthplace to mark the spot, which was demolished by the first Mughal emperor Babur when he built a mosque- Babri Masjid. This Masjid was demolished by about 2,00,000 kar sevaks in 1992. Hence, the disputed land is of great significance to both the religions Hindu and Muslims. This led to communal riots in many parts of the country. 

The Allahabad High Court pronounced its verdict on the suits relating to this dispute on 30 September 2010. The land was divided between the Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla. The bench of 5 judges of the Supreme Court started final hearing on the case in 2019.


  • Whether the Hindu temple existed at the disputed land?
  • Whether the mosque was constructed on the remains of and by using the materials of the temple?
  • Whether Babur demolished the temple?


According to the Supreme Court, the disputed site is one composite whole and hence cannot be divided. The railing set up by the Britishers did not result in sub-division of the land. The court also observed that the Sunni Central Waqf Board has not established any alternate plea of adverse possession as it failed to meet the requirements of adverse possession. The inner courtyard has been a disputed place with disputing claims of the Hindus and Muslims. The evidence indicated that there was no abandonment of the mosque by Muslims. The destruction of the Mosque was totally a serious violation of the rule of law. 

The court observed that the Hindus have established a clear case of possessory title to the outside courtyard by virtue of long and continued worship at the Ramchabutra. The Hindus and Muslims have contested claims to the offering worship within the three-domed structure in the inner courtyard. 


The Supreme Court ordered that the State Government shall, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment, formulate a scheme pursuant to the power vested in it under section 6 and 7 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The government shall set up a Board of trustees or any appropriate body under Section 6. 

The possession of inner and outer courtyards shall be handed to the Board of Trustees or to the body so constituted. The Central Government will have the authority to make suitable provisions in respect of the rest of the acquired land by handing it over to the Trust or body for management and development in terms of the scheme framed in 

accordance with the above directions. SC also directed to handover 5 acres of alternative land space to Sunni Waqf board at a prominent place for building the mosque. SC also dismissed the petition of Nirmohi Akhara seeking control of total disputed land. However, SC asked the Central Government to grant representation in the trust to Nirmohi Akhara if believed to be fit by the government. The SC decision was totally based on the ASI report that confirmed the fact that there is a temple underneath the demolished structure.