1. Public interest petition challenging land lease terms, maintenance of ancient monuments, recovery of property tax, and environmental pollution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 536
1998(4) Supreme 339
Supreme Court of India
(PIL u/A. 32 of Constitution)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI, K.T. Thomas and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Baljit Singh Malik -Petitioner
versus
Delhi Golf Club & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 744 of 1994
Decided on 27-4-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : S. Muralidhar, Advocate (A.C.) and Petitioner-in-Person.
For the Respondent No. 1 : R.K.P. Shankardas, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 : N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, Ashok H. Srivastava, V.K. Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4 : Ranjit Kumar, Advocate.
Important Point
There is no merit in the public interest petition that on lease of land to Delhi Golf Club existing monuments are being subject to defacement and misuse.
Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 32-Public interest petition against Delhi Golf Club & Ors.-Lease of land to Delhi Golf Club containing ancient and protected monuments, particularly Lal Bangla (near the entrance) and one near the swimming pool-Allegation that they are being subject to defacement and misuse-Whether correct? (No).
Held : The Affidavit filed by the Archaeological Survey of India discloses they of the nine monuments in respect of which this petition is filed, only Lal Bangla is declared to be a national monument; that it is under the maintenance and upkeep of Archaeological Survey of India; that the said Lal Bangla is segregated from the other area of the Club; that the Archaeological Survey of India is taking due care of the monuments and in respect of which the respondent No. 1 is rendering full co-operation; that the monument Lal Bangla is well preserved, fenced and free from encroachment with round the clock watch and ward deployed for the proper security of the monument; that the monument has been fully conserved and well maintained since long; that annual maintenance is carried out every year; that the respondent No. 1 is not using the area surrounding Lal Bangla monument. Correctness of the stand of the A.S.I. cannot be seriously disputed nor is it done by the petitioner. Hence the contentions raised regarding Lal Bangla stand rebutted. (Para 3)
Held (for other monuments adjoining the swimming pool) the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are vague, unclear and this Court need not investigate that aspect any further. (Para 4)
(ii) Constitution of India-Art. 32 - Public interest litigation against Delhi Golf Club and others -Lease of land by Ministry of Development to Delhi Golf Club-Extraordinary features regarding extent of land, retrospective renewal rent fixed is not the usual rent and not accessable to public-Whether correct? (No). (Paras 5 to 9)
(iii) Constitution of India-Art. 32-Public interest litigation-That NDMC has failed to recover huge property taxes from Delhi Golf Club-Not factually correct in view of recovery proceedings pending in Court. (Para 10)
(iv) Constitution of India-Art. 32-Public interest litigation-That Delhi Golf Club in the upkeep of golf course used excessive chemical fertilizers causing pollution-Rebutted-No material to show anything to contrary-Contentions-Rejected -Petition dismissed. (Paras 11 & 12)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Allegations of monument misuse, irregular retrospective lease renewal, failure to recover property tax, and pollution from non-eco-friendly fertilizers. (Para 1 , 5 , 9 , 11 )
3. ASI's maintenance of protected monuments is satisfactory; government may grant concessional sports leases for public purpose; environmental claims lack evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 11 )
4. Government may grant land leases for sports at concessional rates rather than market rates to subserve public purpose. (Para 8 )
5. Petition dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. Can the government grant land leases for sports at concessional rates instead of market rates?
Yes, the government may grant leases of land for sports purposes at appropriate concessional rates rather than market rates, as encouraging sports can subserve a public purpose. (Para 8 )
7. What is the evidentiary standard for challenging the maintenance of protected monuments in a public interest petition?
Where the Archaeological Survey of India provides evidence that a national monument is well-preserved, fenced, and maintained, such contentions are rebutted unless specifically disputed with evidence. (Para 3 )
8. Does restricting club membership while allowing public entry via a fee constitute a denial of public access?
No, if entry to the facility is granted to any person upon payment of a day fee, the restriction of membership to a specific class is not untenable. (Para 9 )
Judgment
Rajendra Babu, J.-This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution raises several questions purporting to espouse public interest. Shri Muralidhar assisted this Court as Amicus Curiae and we are beholden to him. We have also heard the petitioner in person. However, after arguments were addressed from time to time finally the points projected for our consideration are as follows:-
(1) that the respondent No. 1 has been granted lease of 179 acres of land in which exist certain ancient and protected monuments. They are being subject to defacement and misuse.
(2) The Ministry of Urban Development, i.e. respondent No. 2 ought not to have allowed the first respondent to occupy the land between 1.1.1991 and 20.7.1994 without a valid lease nor renewed the lease retrospectively from 1.1.1991 on unusual terms conferring extraordinary benefits
(3) that N.D.M.C., respondent No. 4 has failed to take appropriate action with the necessary promptitude to recover the arrears of property tax exceeding Rs. 4, 5 crores owing to it by respondent No. 1.
(4) that excessive use by respondent No. 1 of fertilizers and pesticides in the upkeep of the golf course resulting in pollution of the subsoil and ground water in the area under its possession and in the neighbourhood.
2. There are nine monuments situate within the area in possession of respondent No. 1 and they are :-
1. Lal Bangla (near the entrance)
2. Mosque near hole No. 6 in Golf Club
3. Bagichi near hold No. 4 in Golf Club
4. Sayed Abid’s tomb near hole No. 10 in Golf Club
5. Unknown tomb near hole Nos. 14-16 in Golf Club
6. Unknown tomb near hole No. 18 in Golf Club
7. Barah Khamba
8. Mir Taqu’s Tomb
9. Monument adjoining Swimming Pool
3. Lal Bangla which is situate near the entrance of the Club is protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Central Act”). The claim made in the petition is that the said monument was in shambles a which is not accessable to public nor properly taken care of by the Club or by the Government. The Affidavit filed by the Archaeological Survey of India discloses they of the nine monuments in respect of which this petition is filed, only Lal Bangla is declared to be a national monument; that it is under the maintenance and upkeep of Archaeological Survey of India; that the said Lal Bangla is segregated from the other area of the Club; that the Archaeological Survey of India is taking due care of the monuments and in respect of which the respondent No. 1 is rendering full co-operation; that the monument Lal Bangla is well preserved, fenced and free from encroachment with round the clock watch and ward deployed for the proper security of the monument; that the monument has been fully conserved and well maintained since long; that annual maintenance is carried out every year; that the respondent No. 1 is not using the area surrounding Lal Bangla monument. Correctness of the stand of the A.S.I. cannot be seriously disputed nor is it done by the petitioner. Hence the contentions raised regarding Lal Bangla stand rebutted.
4. Insofar as the remaining monuments are concerned, it is made clear that the stand of the first respondent is that they are not covered by the Central Act since they have not been declared to be protected monuments but are under the control of the State Government. If they are of historical importance and their care would be the responsibility of the Department of Archaeology of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that they have taken the necessary initiative and several steps in conjunction with Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (
