Don't accept Ayodhya panel 'settlement', shocked at Waqf Board 'withdrawing claim': Muslim parties

Muslim parties, sans the Sunni Waqf Board, made clear Friday that they do not accept the Supreme Court-appointed mediation panel's proposal on purported settlement to resolve the Ayodhya land dispute and expressed surprise over reports suggesting that the Board was willing to withdraw the claim on the site of the mosque.

The mediation panel headed by former apex court judge Justice FMI Kallifulla had filed a report in a sealed cover in the Supreme Court indicating a "sort of a settlement" between the Hindu and the Muslim parties in which the Wakf Board agreed to give up its claim over 2.77 acre disputed land at the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri masjid site if certain conditions are fulfilled.

"We are taken aback by the media reports attributed by Shahid Rizvi, advocate on record that Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board was willing to withdraw the claim on site of the Babri Masjid," Eijaz Maqbool, counsel for legal representatives of key Muslim litigants M Siddiq and Misbahuddeen, and four other advocates for Muslim parties said in a statement.

The lawyers said the mediation panel's report was leaked to the media and they do not approve the procedures adopted in the process and the suggested compromise formula of withdrawal of the lawsuit.

"Accordingly, we must make it absolutely clear that we the appellants before Supreme Court do not accept the proposal made which has been leaked out to the Press, nor the procedure by which the mediation has taken place nor the manner in which a withdrawal of the claim has been suggested as a compromise," the statement reads.

"This was broadcasted by all Media agencies and newspapers that UP Sunni Central Waqf Board has agreed to abandon their claim subject to certain conditions. This news was obviously leaked out either by the Mediation Committee or Nirvani Akhara which claim the right on the Mosque or others," it said, adding that the "leak was in total violation of the orders of the Supreme court that had directed that such proceedings should remain confidential."