All India Muslim Personal Law Board ( AIMPLB ) in its meeting has decided that it will file a review petition against the Supreme Court 's decision in the Ayodhya case within 30 days . Giving details of the decisions taken at the meeting of the working committee of the board, the board secretary Zafaryab Jilani told the press conference that a petition for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision on the Ayodhya case will be filed on November 9. The board also said that Muslims cannot accept any other land in exchange for the mosque land.
Zafaryab Jilani said, 'The board believes that the mosque land belongs to Allah and according to the Shariah law, it cannot be given to anyone else. A legal battle will be fought for that land till the end. ' Jilani further said, 'It was unconstitutional to keep statues of Lord Rama in the Babri Masjid on the night of 23 December 1949, so how did the Supreme Court consider those idols to be adorable. They cannot be adorable even according to Hindu scripture. '
These 5 points of the Muslim side will be the basis of the review petition
Syed Qasim Rasul Ilyas from the AIMPLB, in the press conference, while enumerating some points based on the Supreme Court's decision, stated what is the basis of his review petition. The points that the board has counted include -
1 . The construction of the Babri Masjid was done by Babar's commander Mir Baqi in 1528 as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
2. According to the evidence given by the Muslims, the three-dome building of the Babri Masjid from 1857 to 1949 and the interior of the mosque have been in the possession and use of the Muslims. This has also been accepted by the Supreme Court.
3. The last Namaz at Babri Masjid was read on 19 December 1949, the Supreme Court has also considered it.
4.The statue of Ram placed under the main dome of Babri Masjid on the night of 22 and 23 December 1949, is also considered illegal by the Supreme Court.
5. There is no evidence of Ram Janmabhoomi under the dome land in the middle of Babri Masjid or worshiped there.
AIMPLB cited Waqf Act 1995
The document which all the members have signed at the board meeting reads, 'While using Article 142 of the Constitution, the Honorable Justice did not consider that section 104-A and 51 (1) of the Waqf Act 1995 ) Against the land of the mosque and under Statute 142 how can the statutory prohibition / prohibition be given other land in lieu of the mosque? While the Supreme Court itself has clarified in its second decision that there is no definite limit for the judges to exercise the authority of Article 142.
Earlier, Maulana Arshad Madani of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind said after the All India Muslim Personal Law Board meeting on the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya case that despite the fact that we already know that our reconsideration petition is 100% To be dismissed, we should file a reconsideration petition. This is our right.