He condemned Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi and AIMPLB office-bearers Maulana Wali Rahmani, Zafaryab Jilani and Qasim Rasool Ilyas for raising the issue of review.
Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas head Mahant Nritya Gopal Das flayed the AIMPLB’s decision saying it was meant to put a stumbling block in the path of temple construction.
Ayodhya case: Nirmohi Akhara plans to meet PM Modi this week to demand inclusion in Ram Mandir construction trust
The SC on November 9 had cleared the way for the construction of the temple at the disputed site here and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
The meeting chaired by the head of Nirmohi Akhara, Mahant Dinendra Das, was also attended by its Sarpanch Raja Ram Chandra Das here.
The top court observed that in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure a wrong committed should be remedied.
Once a mosque, always a mosque: Prayers were stopped in 1950, but there is no concept of abandoning a mosque Hindu parties only staked claim to right to worship in 1950 suits, not title.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the Akhara's suit was barred by limitation.
The Allahabad HC had dismissed the suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board for possession of the Babri Masjid because it was time-barred.
The Akhara had told the five-judge Constitution bench that the Muslims were not offering regular namaz at the disputed site from 1934 to 1949.
A witness, who had testified in over 200 cases, believed that there was 'no harm in telling a lie' if a place has been forcibly taken away.
The bench asked the Hindu body to show the documents and confine its arguments on its right as 'shebait'.
On Thursday, the Akhara claimed it was the sole 'shebait' of Ram Lalla at the disputed site, prompting the court to say if it was so the Akhara cannot have the title over disputed land.
If Nirmohi Akhara claims 'shabaitship' of deity, it would lose title right over disputed land: Supreme Court
Akhara claimed to be the sole official 'shabait' of deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman' at the disputed site since time immemorial and had said that that it had been appointing 'priest' for worship there.
Counsel Sushil Jain informed the bench that a dacoity took place in 1982 and they lost all the records, proving their ownership, in this incident.
Akhara specifically argued that no Muslim could or ever did enter the temple Building or has even attempted to enter the structure at least since 1934.