1. Clarification of interim order regarding removal of encroachments around a heritage site. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2004 Supreme(SC) 1794
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. KHARE, CJI., AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Rajeev Sethi & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. Nos. 3-4 in W.P(C) No. 483 of 2003
Decided on : 08-03-2004
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Amicus Curiae :- Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate.
For the Petitioners:- Mr. Akhil Sibal, Adv., Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Pooja Nanekar and Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, Advs. for M/s. Lawyers Knit & Co.
For the Respondents:- Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Mr. Kirit N. Raval, Solicitor General Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, Advocate.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Amicus Curiae :- Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate.
For the Petitioners:- Mr. Akhil Sibal, Adv., Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Pooja Nanekar and Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, Advs. for M/s. Lawyers Knit & Co.
For the Respondents:- Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Mr. Kirit N. Raval, Solicitor General Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, Advocate.
An oral order to maintain status quo does not prevent authorities from legally removing encroachments.
Headnote:(A) Status Quo Order - Clarification - Removal of encroachments - An oral order for maintaining status quo does not prevent authorities from removing encroachments in and around a protected monument in accordance with law. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed concerning a protected site. The court had previously issued an oral order to maintain status quo. Clarification was provided regarding whether this order restricted the authorities from removing encroachments.
Findings of Court:
The court clarified that the oral order for maintaining status quo would not prevent the authorities from removing encroachments in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether an oral order to maintain status quo prevents the removal of encroachments by authorities acting in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: An order for status quo does not impair the ability of authorities to remove encroachments, provided such action is taken in accordance with the law.
Result: Matter listed for 15th March, 2004.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The court clarified that the status quo order does not prevent authorities from removing encroachments in accordance with law. (Para 2 )
3. An order of status quo does not prevent authorities from taking lawful action in accordance with law. (Para 2 )
4. Clarification that status quo does not bar lawful encroachment removal; matter listed for further hearing. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Does an interim order of status quo prevent authorities from removing encroachments in accordance with law?
No, the court clarified that the status quo order does not prevent lawful removal of encroachments as per law. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
V.N. Khare, CJI.
We have heard the learned Attorney General and the learned Amicus Curiae.
2. We may clarify that our oral order for maintaining status quo would not prevent the authorities from removing encroachments in and around the Red Fort in accordance with law.
3. List on 15th March, 2004 as first item.
