You want written consent from Ram Lalla Virajman? 

I'm in a state of delusion then 

Or I think I'm hallucinating 

The Plaintiff Ram Lalla Virajman is NOT a natural person. It is a juristic entity acting through a human. 

If you still want written consent from the Lord then you will have to file an application in the SC in the disposed of suit 

I don't even know how the SC will issue summons to Ram Lalla Virajman to answer your concerns to be raised in your above application or whatever proceeding that would be required to be filed 

traditionally legal personhood has been granted to Hindu idols.the recognition of juristic personality was devised by the courts to give legal effect to the Hindu practice of dedicating property for religious or pious purposes.

2)Hindu idols are given legal rights to grant protection against the mismanagement of endowed property and to protect the interests of devotees

3)if the Hindus could establish continuous possession, the property could be vested in the idol.

The Supreme Court has said that Hindus have established “a clear case of a possessory title” to the outside courtyard by virtue of “long, continued and unimpeded worship” at the Ram Chabutra and other objects of religious significance. While taking the scriptures, travelogues, archaeological evidences and legal provision, Court has maintained the uninterrupted claim of Ram Lalla Virajman over the place.

4) pursuant to the powers vested in center under Sections 6 and 7 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993. SC directed that The scheme shall envisage the setting up of a trust with a Board of Trustees or any other appropriate body under Section 6 who will undertake the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed structure site

In Supreme Court's verdict on the Ayodhya dispute in 2019, it was decided that the disputed land would be handed over to a trust formed by the Government of India for the construction of a Ram temple. T

he trust was eventually formed under the name of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra.

 In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque. 

Therefore  your allegations that the supreme court has usurped clearly indicates that it is your imaginary concept and not a valid point for any argument. 

All your further questions hav clear and proper explanation which can be found in the detailed judgment rendered by the honorable apex court. 

The dispute is about the place of worship and not about the place of a hospital or place for any other subject.

The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic.

In 1950, the state took control of the mosque under section 145 CrPC and allowed Hindus, not Muslims, to perform their worship at the site.

Two archaeological excavations in 1978 and 2003 conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that the Hindu temple's remains existed on the site.

Over the years, various title and legal disputes took place, such as the passage of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act in 1993. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of disputed land be divided into 3 parts, with 1⁄3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Mahasabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1⁄3 going to the Muslim Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1⁄3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara.

When the Allahabad high court decided to partition the property into three parts and to allot one such share to Muslim Sunni Wakf board, was there any claim made by The Allah the Great directly to the court or whether the court accepted the consent parties as representatives of Allah The Great. 

A detailed explanation about the origin of title has been given in the verdict which includes various arguments for and agaisnt by eminent lawyers and great personalities appeared before the apex court.

Therefore you can find the answers for all your queries if time permits your to peruse the SC verdict on the subject. 

1. Very good question, you can file a petition  before SC seeking cancellation of verdict of handing over the site to the trustees for the reasons your rely upon. 

2. Even this question can be included in your suit for cancellation of the verdict to handover possession to the trust for the purpose of worship instead you can seek direction of the apex court to instruct the trustees to convert this place for any other  purpose except for worshiping. 

You can take the assistance of a very popular advocate of the country who will fight for your cause in this regard if you are not able to fight it out as party in person 

The SC held that worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded despite the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. "Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it."

The court ruled that the Hindus worshipping at Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and at other religious places, including the setting up of a Bhandar, clearly indicated their "open, exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard". 

hence since Ram Lalla was in possession of premises court directed that trust be established for said disputed land 

2) section 6 of Ayodhya act 1993 empowered  central government to direct vesting of area in another authority or trust .since land was acquired by central govt court directed that under section 6 of the act trust be formed by central government 

3) it will not set up precedent and promote land grabbers to grab land 

ram Lalla is juristic  person and hence land not given to next of kin . Trust was formed as per powers vested in central govt to form trust under section 6 of Ayodhya act 

2) since lord Ram was worshipped-on said land SC did not direct any religious infra structure on said land 

Dear client,

The land that belonged to Ram Lalla was decided by the Supreme Court based on historical and legal factors. The court acknowledged the Ram Janmabhoomi temple's existence as well as the site's sacred significance to Hindus. The verdict addressed the particular problem pertaining to the contested territory rather than necessarily supporting one religious organization over another. Regarding the decision of the court to build a temple instead of other types of infrastructure, it is important to remember that the ruling was particular to the instance in question. The historical assertion that the location is where Lord Ram was born was at the center of the judicial procedures. The court's ruling does not rule out the potential of such religious or educational initiatives in other settings. Constitutional considerations, such as the defense of religious freedom and the interpretation of statutes pertaining to property and historical claims, would probably serve as the foundation for the ruling.

Hope this helps you.