JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is arising out of the common judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No.2725/2018 titled Mrs. Roseline Wilson and Ors. Vs. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.; and W.P.(C.) No. 8203/2018 titled Luice M. Jacob Vs. Union of India & Ors. The learned Single Judge has passed a common judgment deciding both the aforesaid writ petitions as they relate to eviction notices issued by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to the writ petitioners/appellants.

2. The first writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 2725/2018 was filed by the petitioners (63 in number) stating that they are in possession of property bearing Khasra No.465 known as Christian Compound, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. It is an undisputed fact that the said property is a protected monument of national importance and a notification was issued on 13.12.1922, i.e. Notification No.7331 published in the Gazette of India on 23.12.1922 declaring it to be a protected monument. The writ petitioners even though it was a protected monument known as D` Eremao Cemetery were claiming ownership rights based upon the revenue record (Jamabandi) for the year 1921-22.

3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Superintending Archaeologist of ASI issued a show-cause notice on 13.09.2005 directing the writ petitioners to show-cause as to why action in respect of eviction should not be initiated against them and they submitted a reply to the notice on 20.09.2005. The ASI after careful consideration of the reply filed by the writ petitioners passed an eviction order dated 17.12.2005 directing demolition of the unauthorized construction in the matter and also directing the writ petitioners to vacate the property within 24 hours.

4. The writ petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the ASI, came up before this Court by filing writ petitions being W.P.(C.) Nos.20917-76/2005 and the said writ petitions were dismissed by an order dated 12.01.2007.

5. The undisputed facts of the case further reveal that an LPA was preferred against the order dated 12.01.2007, being LPA No.123/2007, wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2008 set aside the order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the ASI to pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the writ petitioners. The undisputed facts of the case further reveal that the writ petitioners appeared before the Superintendent Archaeologist, however, no reasoned speaking order was passed in the matter.

6. The facts further reveal that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being W.P.(C.) No. 539/2016 (being dealt with later in this judgment) was preferred by one of the residents for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents therein to comply with the order dated 16.10.2008 and the said PIL was disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2016 with a direction to the ASI to comply with the earlier order dated 16.10.2008 passed in LPA 123/2007.

7. The writ petitioners contended that the ASI, instead of complying with the earlier order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, issued fresh show-cause notices/eviction orders dated 19.08.2016 and 26.08.2016, which led to filing of a Contempt Petition being Cont.Cas(C.) No.20/2017. This Court by an order dated 11.01.2017 again directed the ASI to pass an appropriate order on the issue whether the said property was a part of the D` Eremao Cemetery, or not.

8. The ASI again passed an eviction order on 10.01.2017 directing the writ petitioners to vacate the said premises within seven days and to demolish the structures raised thereon. The writ petitioners again preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 594/2017. This Court by an order dated 20.11.2017 set aside the eviction order dated 10.01.2017 with a direction to the ASI to pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity of