Ayodhya, July 26: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Wednesday said the Ram Mandir will be constructed in Ayodhya. Making strong pitch for the construction of a grand Ram Temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya, Yogi Adityanath said he has come in Ayodhya to fulfil the dream of Ramchandra Das Paramhans. Yogi Adityanath arrived Ayodhya to attend an event organised to mark the 14th death anniversary of Ramchandra Das Paramhans, the high priest of Digamber Akhada who till his death in 2003 was synonymous with the temple movement.

“I have come here to talk on the topic of Ram Mandir. It is Ramchandra Das Paramhans’ dream… that’s why I have come here,” Yogi Adityanath was quoted as saying. Ramchandra Das Paramhans had in 1950 filed a suit in Faizabad seeking permission to offer prayers to idols installed at Asthan Janmabhoomi. On being asked whether the government should bring a law or not to construct the temple, the BJP leader said, “Let the verdict come. The matter is sub judice.”

In May, Yogi Adityanath visited Ayodhya first time after being sworn-in as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Yogi Adityanath had offered prayers on the banks of River Saryu and also at makeshift Ram Mandir. He was also the first CM in over 15 years to visit the Ram Janmabhoomi site. His visit to Ayodhya had come a day after criminal conspiracy charges were framed against BJP stalwarts including LK Advani, MM Joshi in the 1992 Babri mosque demolition case.

The Allahabad High Court had in 2010 directed that the Ayodhya site, where the Babri Masjid once stood, be split between Nirmohi Akhara, the Waqf Board and the Ramlala, who were all claimants. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court by its September 30, 2010, verdict ordered that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts — one for deity (Ramlala Virajmaan), another for Nirmohi Akhara — a Hindu sect and an original litigant in the case and third for the Muslims.

The Supreme Court had put the Allahabad High court verdict on hold on May 9, 2011, describing it as a “rare judgment whose operation has to be stayed”.