Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 144

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Sakkubai – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1443-1456, 1457, 1459 of 2020, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 13714-13727, 15203 of 2015, 4080 of 2020, Diary No. 1942 of 2018
Decided On : 11-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, Adv. Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar, K.B., Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghavendra s. Srivastava, AOR Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Komal M., Adv. Ms. Sindoora V.N.L., Adv. Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Mrs. Rekha Chandra Sekhar, Adv. Mr. Karri Venkata reddy, Adv.
.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Matter cannot be kept in abeyance merely on the ground of filing a writ petition unless there is a stay.
An area can be declared protected area even if there is no monument.
Act 1961 and Act 2002 have common object and are in continuity.
Lack of notification under section 14 of act 2002 does not render earlier notification issued under Act 1961 unenforceable.

Headnote:
(a) Practice and procedure - Impact of filing writ petition before High Court on subsequent matters/appeals - Decision in a subsequent but related matter - Cannot be deferred during pendency of a writ petition before High Court where no stay has been granted by High court. (Para 10)
(b) Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 - Section 2(1) and 2(3), and 19(3) - Protected monuments and protected areas - May or may not be together - An area can be declared protected area even if there is no monument - Instantly declaration of entire village of Virupapura Gaddi as protected area not invalid. (Para 14)
(c) Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 - Section and 20(1), 20(2) - Entire village of Virupapura Gaddi declared as protected area u/s 19(3) - Any use of land other than for agriculture prohibited - Appellants owning land - Constructed hotels and restaurants thereon - Illegal, despite obtaining approval by panchayat. (Para 17, 18)
(d) Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 - Section and 20(1), 20(2) - r/w sections 11 and 14, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 - Entire village of Virupapura Gaddi in World Heritage area declared as protected area u/s 19(3) - Both Acts having common object of preserving heritage monuments and areas - Act 1961 having broader canvass of entire State of Karnataka while Act 2002 focused on Hampi area - There is continuity between the two Acts - Notifications under Act 1961 could be given effect under Act 2002 - HWHAMA was, and is entitled to proceed against illegal development raised by Appellants. (Para 21, 22)
(e) Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 - Section 14 - HWHAMA sole authority for undertaking development in heritage area of such types as specifically notified by it - No such notification issued by HWHAMA - Does not render earlier notification issued under Act 1961 unenforceable - Notification dated 10.07.2008 regarding implementation of Master Plan 2021 and the Zonal Regulations specifying restrictions as to land use and the prohibited types of development fulfills requirement of Section 14(1). (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Upon the introduction of the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002, the authority constituted thereunder, the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority directed the panchayats and local authorities not to renew any licenses and not to grant permission for commercial activities within Virupapura Gaddi. Later, in exercise of its powers under the Hampi Act, the HWHAMA issued notices to the Appellants for demolishing the structures constructed by them in Virupapura Gaddi. To restrain them from doing so, the Appellants herein filed writ petitions before the High Court, seeking the identical relief of a direction to HWHAMA to forbear from carrying out such demolition.
The High Court dismissed these writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
Development by appellants in protected area is liable to be demolished.
Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals arise out of the common final judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P. Nos. 60278, 60279, 60280, 60304-60315 of 2011. Vide the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions seeking a direction to the Respondent-authorities to restrain them from demolishing the restaurants and guest houses run by the writ petitioners in Virupapura Gaddi, Koppal district, Karnataka.

3. The background to this appeal is as follows:

3.1 With the object of ensuring the preservation of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains in the erstwhile State of Mysore, the Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 ( hereinafter ‘the 1961 Act’) was enacted. Under this statute, the State Government was accorded the power to declare certain ancient monuments as ‘protected monuments’ and certain archaeological sites and remains as protected areas. Accordingly, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of the 1961 Act, the State Government issued a (preliminary) notification on 19.05.1982 for declaration of certain archaeological sites and remains specified in the schedule thereto as protected areas. Subsequently, on 22.10.1988, a (final) notification was issued under Section 19(3) of the 1961 Act declaring ten villages, including Virupapura Gaddi, as ‘protected areas’ ( hereinafter ‘the 1988 notification’).

3.2 It is the case of the Appellants that they own lands in Virupapura Gaddi, an oval islet formed by the Tungabhadra river, located on the west of the Hampi World Heritage site. The Appellants claim that during the period from 1990-2000, given the increasing number of tourists visiting Virapupura Gaddi, they obtained hotel/restaurant licenses from the village panchayat to cater to the needs of the tourists. In certain instances, they also obtained diversion orders from the local authorities for changing the land use from agricultural to nonagricultural, so that they could run hotels, restaurants and guest houses in their premises.

3.3 However, upon the introduction of the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 (hereinafter ‘the Hampi Act’), the authority constituted thereunder, the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (hereinafter HWHAMA), Respondent No. 4 herein, directed the panchayats and local authorities not to renew any licenses and not to grant permission for commercial activities within Virupapura Gaddi. Later, in exercise of its powers under the Hampi Act, the HWHAMA issued notices to the Appellants for demolishing the structures constructed by them. To restrain them from doing so, the Appellants herein filed writ petitions before the High Court, seeking the identical relief of a direction to HWHAMA to forbear from carrying out such demolition.

3.4 Vide the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2015, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed these writ petitions. The High Court found that the 1988 notification declared the entire village of Virupapura Gaddi as protected area. As a result, Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act came into operation, rendering the land there usable for the purposes of cultivation only, unless otherwise approved by the State Government. Thus, given that the writ petitioners had constructed rooms, thatched roof huts, temporary structures, and buildings to carry on the business of hotels, restaurants, or guesthouses in Virupapura Gaddi, it was held that such construction was in violation of the 1961 Act. It was also observed that the panchayats did not have any authority to accord sanction to the building plans, as such power was solely vested with the State Government under Section 20(1) of the 1961 Act. Furthermore, it was noted that Virupapura Gaddi fell in the ‘core zone’ of the heritage area specified under the Hampi Act, and was therefore subject to the authority of the HWHAMA. Hence, in light of the ill

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday