New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear the matter on Ayodhya land dispute case on August 2, after the three-member mediation panel submits its report on Thursday in a sealed cover.

The mediation panel, which was formed on the order of the five-judge constitution bench, comprises of retired Justice Kalifullah, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.

The mediation exercise was extended to July 31 and the panel will submit its on August 1 in a sealed cover, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier order.

A Supreme Court bench, led by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will hear the matter on August 2.

Ayodhya Land Dispute

In 1885, Faizabad district court rejected a plea filed by Mahant Raghubir Das seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure.

The dispute gained momentum in 1949 when an idol of Ram Lalla was surreptitiously kept in the central dome outside the disputed structure.

Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board later filed a suit seeking possession of the site. But the issue came to the fore in 1986 when the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi decided to open the locks of disputed structure for Hindu worshippers after Faizabad district court ordered so.

On December 6, 1992, the disputed structure of Babri Masjid was demolished by kar sevaks.

In 1994, the Supreme Court, in historic Ismail Faruqui case, observed that Mosque was not an integral part of Islam.

The Allahabad High Court, in 2010, on the land dispute case, ordered to distribute the land to all the three parties – Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas – equally, but was challenged in the Supreme Court by all three.

In April, the Nirmohi Akhara had filed an application in the Supreme Court opposing Centre’s plea seeking the return of 67.390 acres of undisputed acquired land to original owners.

In its application, the Nirmohi Akhara said that the Centre had proposed the returning of acquired land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and that there were many temples on the acquired land and their rights would be affected if the land was returned to one party.