The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993
The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993
1. Background
Ayodhya, a town in Uttar Pradesh, became the center of a long-standing dispute over a piece of land claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the dispute over the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site led to communal tensions and legal uncertainty.
To settle the issue temporarily and to facilitate the construction of a temple or mosque in an organized manner, the Parliament passed the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.
Objective: To acquire the disputed land for public purposes, keeping peace and preventing further conflict.
2. Objective of the Act
To acquire ownership of the disputed area at Ayodhya by the Central Government.
To allow peaceful resolution of disputes concerning possession.
To hold the land in trust for religious or public purposes.
To enable administrative control over the disputed site and avoid further communal unrest.
3. Key Provisions of the Act
(a) Acquisition (Section 3)
The Central Government is empowered to acquire the disputed land in Ayodhya.
The Act applies to all claims regarding ownership, possession, and right to the land.
(b) Vesting (Section 4)
Once acquired, the ownership and management of the land vested in the Central Government.
The government can control, administer, or regulate use of the land for public purposes.
(c) Compensation (Section 5)
Fair compensation is to be paid to any person with a legal claim to the land.
Compensation is determined by the Central Government.
(d) Public Purpose Clause
The land can be used for religious or public purposes, including the development of temples, mosques, or public facilities.
Ensures that communal tensions are minimized by government control of the land.
(e) Legal Protection (Section 6)
No suit, prosecution, or legal proceedings can be initiated against the government for actions taken under the Act.
Protects the government from challenges while exercising its powers.
4. Case Law Related to the Act
**(a) M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (1994–2003, Supreme Court)
Challenge: Petitions were filed claiming the Act violated fundamental rights of property and religion.
Supreme Court held:
Parliament has the power under Article 248 read with Entry 42 of List I (Union List) to acquire land for public purposes.
Acquisition of disputed land is valid under law.
**(b) Kalyan Singh v. Union of India (1992–1994, Allahabad High Court)
Before the Act, the High Court considered claims over the Babri Masjid site.
While the High Court did not decide ownership, it recognized the need for government intervention to maintain law and order.
The Act gave statutory authority to the Central Government to take control, thus preventing further litigation and conflict.
**(c) Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Case (M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2010 SC)
While final adjudication of ownership occurred later, courts acknowledged the 1993 Act as valid in vesting management of land temporarily with the government.
The Act was used to prevent immediate construction or occupation until a proper legal resolution was made.
5. Significance
Prevents Law and Order Problems – The Act ensured government control to prevent communal violence.
Temporary Settlement – Provided statutory authority to hold the land pending legal and administrative decisions.
Public Purpose Doctrine – Land acquisition for religious and public purposes recognized by Parliament.
Compensation Mechanism – Safeguarded rights of claimants while allowing acquisition.
Legal Protection – Shielded government actions from litigation during acquisition and administration.
✅ Conclusion
The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 was a special law enacted to acquire and vest disputed land at Ayodhya in the Central Government.
It allowed the government to maintain peace, administer the land, and provide compensation to claimants.
Courts, in cases like M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, upheld the validity of the Act, emphasizing Parliament’s power to acquire land for public and religious purposes.
While it did not resolve ownership finally, it legally facilitated government intervention to prevent further unrest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments