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.

 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