Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1045
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Rajeev Suri – Petitioners
VERSUS
Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12213 of 2019 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-02-2019 in WPC No. 4099/2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
Decided On : 12-11-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Wamika Chadha, Adv. Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Jha, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Aranya Sahay, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. B. L. N. Shivani, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Md Ghulam Akbar, Adv. Mr. Jeemon Raju K, Adv. Ms. Shruti Shashi, Adv. Mr. Sushant Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. D Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Ms. A. M. Harsavardhini, Adv. Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of preserving monuments in their original form for protection under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and ordered a CBI inquiry into unauthorized alterations.
Headnote:
(A) Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 - Protection of monuments - Petition challenging dismissal of writ petition regarding the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, a medieval monument, which was claimed to have lost its originality due to unauthorized alterations by the Defence Colony Welfare Association - The court directed a preliminary inquiry by the CBI into the circumstances surrounding the occupation and alterations made to the monument. (Paras 3, 7, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction of ASI - The ASI's change in stance regarding the protection of the Gumti was influenced by objections raised by the Defence Colony Welfare Association, leading to questions about the ASI's decision-making process. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to protect the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, which had been occupied and altered by the Defence Colony Welfare Association since approximately 1963, leading to its loss of originality and potential protection under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Gumti was under unauthorized occupation and alterations were made without permission, necessitating a CBI inquiry to ascertain the details and responsible parties.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the DCWA's occupation, the ASI's change in position regarding the monument's status, and the lack of action by the L&DO to prevent alterations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry into the unauthorized occupation and alterations of the Gumti, highlighting the importance of preserving monuments in their original form for protection under the Act.
Result: The court ordered a preliminary inquiry by the CBI and appointed an expert to assess the damage and restoration possibilities.
ORDER
This petition was filed challenging the order of the Delhi High Court dated 20.02.2019, which had dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition. The core of the dispute is regarding a medieval period monument called ‘Gumti of Shaikh Ali’, which is situated in Defence Colony, New Delhi and from where, admittedly, the office of Defence Colony Welfare Association (in short, ‘DCWA’) is presently operates.
2. The petitioner has sought the following prayers from this Court :-
“(a) That… this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 4099/2018.
(b) Such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, including the counsel appearing for Archeological Survey of India [in short, ‘ASI’] and other relevant parties. On 27.08.2024, the following order was passed by this Court :-
“Heard the petitioner in-person and learned counsel for the parties.
IA No.78852/2019
2. Exemption from filing Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgment1is granted; IA No.78852/2019 is allowed.
SLP (C) No.12213/2019
3. The Petitioner had moved the Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’) for, in essence, the protection of a Gumti, which he contends, is a monument situated in Defence Colony, New Delhi under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petition viz. Writ Petition (Civil) No.4099/2018 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 20.02.2019. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. The brief facts are that on 09.02.2004, vide Gazette Notification S.O.183(E), Respondent No.2/ Central Government (Union of India) gave notice of its intention under Section 4(1) of the Act to declare the Gumti to be of national importance. Objections to such declaration were sought within a period of 2 months. On07.04.2004, Respondent No.4/Defence Colony Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCWA’) objected to the proposal, which was forwarded to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASI’) by the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Delhi Circle (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Superintending Archaeologist’) on 21.04.2004. On 15.05.2004, the Director General’s office sought the Superintending Archaeologist’s comments on the DCWA’s objections.
5. On 29.06.2004, the Superintending Archaeologist reverted to the Director General, ASI. The comments offered by the Superintending Archaeologist lead nowhere – 2 points from the DCWA’s objections are noted and it is stated that the Gumti has been in the DCWA’s occupation and additions/ alterations have been made over time, which may be considered before issuing the confirmatory notification under the Act. Thereafter begins a long chain of correspondence intra-ASI, which we have perused. Sometime,in the year 2008, as noted in the Impugned Judgment, the Central Government decided that the Gumti could not be declared as a monument of national importance as major additions/alterations had been made by the DCWA who had been using it as its office leading to the Gumti losing its originality.
6. We are surprised at the turn of events. In the year 2004, the competent body to recommend declaration of a structure as a monument of national importance viz. ASI favoured so doing, based on the Superintending Archaeologist’s comments supra, but later the ASI reports that as alterations had been made by the DCWA while occupying the structure, the Gumti had lost its originality. From the note accompanying the letter dated 15.02.2008 addressed to the Superintending Archaeologist
