ORDER :

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant which is a Temple Trust. It appears that the land subject matter of suit bearing Khasra No.11 (Area 3 Bigha, 1 Biswa), Khevat No.1, situated at Mauza Basai, Tehsil and District Agra is admittedly owned by the appellant. The courts have found that the appellant is the owner of the said land. After recording the finding that the appellant is the owner of the land and that the said land is being used by the respondent for beautification of Taj Mahal, the courts did not grant relief of injunction. It appears from the decision in second appeal that a prayer was made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that damages ought to have been awarded. This prayer was made in the light of what is recorded in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment which reads thus:

"Upon perusal of the aforesaid orders, there is no doubt that development of a green belt over the disputed land has been undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India, in furtherance/implementation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, therefore, no exception can be taken. On these facts no perversity could be attached to the view taken by the courts below in dismissing the suit."

2. Pursuant to the order dated 10th January, 2024, an affidavit has been filed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). In substance, the stand taken in the affidavit is that the ASI carried out work of removal of vegetation growth, accumulated garbage and silt deposited during the rainy season, dung of cattle and other undesirable materials in the year 2004. Thereafter, the landscaping activity/green belt is initiated. It is stated that the land measuring 7030 square meters is completely free from any activity of ASI except that it has to be maintained as a green belt. It is stated that the land is fenced to prevent entry of cattle. ASI has relied upon Section 20A of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Site and Remains Act, 1958 (for short, 'the 1958 Act') and has also relied upon an order made by this Court on 4th September, 1998 in Writ Petition No.13381/1984 (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.). The submission of the ASI represented by the learned ASG is that it is in view of the order of this Court that all construction activities within 500 meters of area of Taj Mahal have been prohibited and this buffer zone of the 500 meters is to be used for the purpose of improving environmental conditions in the vicinity of Taj Mahal.

3. Now, we refer to Section 20A of the 1958 Act which reads thus:

"20A. Declaration of prohibited area and carrying out public work or other works in prohibited area.-Every area, beginning at the limit of the protected area or the protected monument, as the case may be, and extending to a distance of one hundred metres in all directions shall be the prohibited area in respect of such protected area or protected monument:

Provided that the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Authority, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify an area more than one hundred metres to be the prohibited area having regard to the classification of any protected monument or protected area, as the case may be, under section 4A.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in section 20C, no person, other than an archaeological officer, shall carry out any construction in any prohibited area.

(3) In a case where the Central Government or the Director-General, as the case may be, is satisfied that-

(a) it is necessary or expedie