Decks are cleared for the Ayodhya judgement on Thursday at 3.30 pm, as the Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted its stay on pronouncement by the Special Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court that will decide who has the property rights over the disputed site.

The high court would have pronounced its decision on the 60-year-old land title suit last Friday, but for the apex court slapping a stay a day earlier on an urgent Special Leave Petition (SLP) by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi to give time for an out-of-court settlement.

"Having considered in detail the arguments of the parties, we are of the view that the SLP has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the SLP stands dismissed," says a summary unanimous order pronounced by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Santosh Homi Kapadia. It gave no reason for overturning the stay granted by another bench of  Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale last Thursday to allow the two communities a chance to settle it amicably.

Lawyers expect a reasoned order in the course of the day, but some said the apex court is not bound to give reasons for not admitting an SLP, more so when it can influence the high court verdict. The order was pronounced at 2 pm, post lunchbreak, after over two hours of hearing. Other judges on the bench were Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan.

The Supreme Court's hand was tied by all parties, except the petitioner, that pleaded to let the high court give its verdict as they contended that there is no scope for any settlement among the parties in view of failure of so many efforts in the past.

The centre also conveyed to the highest court through Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati that it wants uncertainty over the high court decision to end. "We cannot keep the security forces in suspended animation for long," the attorney general stated, pleading that the judgment on ownership of the disputed site, one way or the other, should come without any further hitches.

The government has already alerted the state governments, deployed the central forces in Uttar Pradesh and issued appeals to people to maintain peace as if fears the verdict can set off a repeat of one of the worst communal violences in Independent India witnessed after the Babri mosque demolition in 1992.

Though the case combining five suits is primarily to settle the dispute over the land title presently owned by the Sunni Waqf Trust, the high court has expanded it to cover 28 issues that include alleged demolition of the Ram Mandir at the Lord Ram's birthplace (janmabhoomi) in the 16th century to erect the Babri Mosque in its place.

It is to be seen whether the three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court is able to settle some of the ticklish issues that are historical or mythological like whether it is Lord Ram's birthplace that the Supreme Court had refused to handle back in 1994 whiling returning a presidential reference on the matter.

The high court will deliver the verdict on Thursday at 3.30 pm, Hari Shankar Dubey, an official of the Lucknow Bench registry said in Lucknow. The court is in a rush to pronounce the verdict as Justice Dharam Veer Sharma on the bench, which also includes Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agrawal, retires on Friday and a de novo hearing by a new bench will be necessary if there is any delay.

The bench has tried to cover all possible aspects that can be settled in the verdict and they include whether the demolished structure was a mosque, whether it was built on the site of a demolished Hindu temple and who built it -- Mughal emperor Babar or his Awadh governor Mir Baqi Tashqandi, and whether and what relief, if any, the Muslim body is entitled if the title is settled in favour of the Hindus.

The issues to be ruled also include whether Muslims prayed in the demolished mosque from time immemorial and possessed the property openly and continuously since 1528 and whether Hindus have worshipped at the site as Ram’s birthplace from time immemorial and whether the idols and other objects of worship were placed in the structure on the night of December 22-23, 1949 or existed earlier.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for petitioner Tripathi, as well as Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jilani challenging the delay in the verdict agreed that whichever party loses is bound to come to the Supreme Court.

Both Congress and main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party welcomed the Supreme Court's decision.

"The final roadblock has been cleared and we expect the judgment will be delivered at the earliest. People of India are mature enough to accept whatever the verdict," said Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP general secretary and chief spokesman, who was also present in the court in his capacity as a senior advocate.

"The time has now come for the judicial pronouncement," said Congress general secretary and chief spokesman Janardhan Dwivedi, aserting that the party is happy with the apex court's decision.

BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar said his party is happy that the uncertainty that had surrounded the verdict is over as the stay itself was unprecedented and bound to be lifted when parties are just not ready for settlement.